











f 


























» 









• -ij 


: , n\, <t 'J ^ JR ' ’ 


K . 

> 


* fiv^ t ^ 
A 


I' ^ 









I I 






i. 


•‘Cf, 



.V 


. I 


. $ 


■r^^jvvia,-. 


?fc\'^n'* v _.v;., 

,v*‘ 






•». 




iK 


V-'* "'. 


‘life I 


<1 


/ 4 l 




I 






■ 'r. -■ 


Ui : 




> 


- ^ « 



.V 



I 


IS. *> V- ^'. X'' 


'^.le 55^ 




I I 


« f 


#f !• • 






/V sl. >.. V ,*■<- > ,■>.-. 

. ;v - m 


y \ 


• r 


1 ^ 


^ X'’ •,-. . 









IJ 


•9 > 






* 


* 1 : ''t 





<» 


K* 


• 9 


y 7 j'l ^ 


*•> 


H « 


rn 




* t •'■ • 


I 





\ c 




,V '• 


b s • • ^ ** ■ *' 

; •‘t: i/v.v f& 

i-,'v;V.i^'^ ■; ».',; \j£//:"’: 4 / 


u 


I') 




1 


/ -L. -. 




K 




■9 ^'' . 


» « 


;<v‘Vx 


«4 


4 ^ 


:> 


^ s 


,“.‘VvV. 


’ > 


, / 


/■ 




J 


i^V ' 


r'ni'isw.^J 


\ 


. {j-v- v'<« 


rx 0 > AI 


4^ 





ri 



\ 


• $ 



‘ V 




I. 



i \ 


I 


A.' 


M 


’ V 


-k- 






A VIEW 


THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY 

IN THREE PARTS. 

BY 

WILLIAM PALEY, D. D. 

ARCHDEACON OF CARLISLE. 


\ 

r 

i 










James Kay J’' k C? Plixladelplvia. 
Jolin J.Kay k C? PittslDurg, 


E>AIL,EY.. 


1 

\ 

{ 



. 






( 

» 

i 


i 






'i- V 











•a: 






A? 


ARCHDEACON PALEY’S 

< 

* 

! VIEW 




OF 


THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 


Sn $stts. 


Part I. Of the Direct Histo¬ 
rical Evidence of Christianity, 
AND wherein it IS DISTINGUISHED 

from the evidence alleged for 

OTHER MIRACLES. 


Part II. *'Thb adziliast Evi¬ 
dences OF Christianity. 

Part III. A Brief Considera* 
tion of some Popular Objections 


WITH A MEMOIR, 


PUBLISHED BY 

JAMES KAY, JUN. AND BROTHER, PHILADELPHIA. 

122 Chestnut Street—near 4th. 

JOHN I..KAY & CO., PITTSBURGH. 



) ) > ' 

) > 



v 


311 ' 




\ 


r 


( 


' “ The pious and philanthropic Douglas, of Scotland, in a late 
work, expresses it as his opinion, that Euclid’s Elements, and 
Paley’s PlviDENCES, are the only two treatises which are perfectly 
adapted to the business of elementary instruction. This opinion from 
a mind so comprehensive and so highly gifted as that of the gentle¬ 
man above mentioned, cannot hut recommend this work to the 
careful perusa’ of all such persons as wish for full information and 
complete satisfaction on this momentous subject.”—Jiev. Dr. Alexattf 
der, Princeton, N J 


4 


Transfer 


Engineers School Uhy. 

»^une29, 1932 


< 


V 




MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 


William Palky, a celebrated divine and philosophec aaid au¬ 
thor of the following admirable volume, was the son of a clergy¬ 
man, who held a small living near Peterborough, where the subject 
of this memoir was born in 1743. He was instructed under his 
father, who became master of a grammar-school in Yorkshire, 
whence he was removed as a sizar to Christchurch college, Cam¬ 
bridge. He soon obtained a scholarship, and in 1763, having highly 
distinguished himself as a disputant on questions of natural and 
moral philosophy, he took his first degree. He was afterwards em¬ 
ployed for three years as an assistant to an academy at Greenwich, 
and on taking deacon’s orders, officiated as curate to Dr. Hinchcliffe, 
Greenvdch, and afterwards bishop of Peterborough. 
||pV In 1766 he proceeded MA., was elected a fellow of his college, and 
W appointed one of its tutors. In the latter capacity he signally dis- 

i tinguished himself by his assiduity and ability; and the lectures 

? which he then delivered on the Greek Testament and on moral 

J philosophy, contain the outlines of the works by which he subse- 

(i, quently obtained so much celebrity. In 1767 he took priest’s orders, 

and maintained an intimate acquaintance with the most eminent 
persons in the university, particularly Dr. Law, bishop of Carlisle, 
Dr. John Law his son, and doctors Waring and Jebb. Most of these 
being presumed to fall below the established standard of orthodoxy, 
Mr. Paley began to be regarded with some coolness by its most 
zealous defenders. His friends could not, however, persuade him 
to sign the petition for relief in the matter of subscription to the ar¬ 
ticles, on which occasion he observed, with more point than de¬ 
corum, that “ he could not afibrd to keep a conscience.” In 1776 he 
quitted the university, after a residence of ten years, and entered 
into a matrimonial connexion. He had previously obtained a small 
benefice in Westmoreland, and he now was inducted into the vicar¬ 
age of Dalston, in Cumberland, to which was soon after added the 
living of Appleby, and a prebendal stall in the cathedral of Car¬ 
lisle. In 1782 he was appointed archdeacon of the diocese, and not 

A2 



MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. 


vi 

long afterwards succeeded Dr. Burn in the chancellorship, for all 
which preferments he was indebted to the bishop of Carlisle. 

In 1785 he published his "Elements of Moral and Political Phi¬ 
losophy f with a highly liberal dedication to his episcopal patron. 
Of a work so well known, it is unnecessary to sfey more than that, 
while with much vigor and discrimination it stands unrivalled for 
its simplicity and pertinence of illustration, many of the definition.s 
and principles laid down, both in his politics and morals, are justly 
open to exception. 

In 1790 appeared the Horce PaulincBf or the Truth of the Scripture 
History of St. Paul evinced, hy a Comparison of the Epistles which 
hear his name, with the Acts of the Apostles, and with one another 
This work will be valued by sagacious judges as the most ingeni¬ 
ous and original of all our author's productions. It has been trans¬ 
lated into the German language; but has never obtained in this 
country that general perusal with which Paley’s larger works have 
been honored. This comparative neglect is to be attributed not to 
the execution of the work, w'hich is admirable, but to the subtile 
nature of the proof which the design admitted. Although the total 
result of the argument is an accumulation of evidence, that is al¬ 
most irresistible; yet the proofs, singly, are established by a recon¬ 
dite criticism, by minute collations, and verbal peculiarities, which 
few have delicacy of taste enough to relish. This publication is the 
only one in which Paley seems not to have adapted himself exactly 
to the tone of the public mind ; but be is repaid for the neglect of 
the many by the approbation of the few that are learned and critical 
readers. 

Early in the year 1794, his View of the Evidences of Christianity 
Was given to the public. In this luminous and comprehensive 
work, the historical evidence for the authenticity of our Scriptures, 
Bele'cted from the volumes of Dr. Lardner, is arranged with clear¬ 
ness, and stated to the reader with the utmost force and precision 
Many persons are wearied into impatience by the number of pages 
he has occupied in proving the sufferings of the first propagators of 
Christianity. But as this fact is the basis of the work, it was re¬ 
quisite that it should be undeniably established: superfluity of 
proof may be tedious, but deficiency w’ould have been fatal. To 
those who shrink from the labors of weighing the detail of histor¬ 
ical evidence, the two last parts of the work will be more interest¬ 
ing than the first. It is impossible to arise from a careful perusal 


MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. vii 

of the whole, we will not say, without conviction (for that may be 
impeded by many obstructions in the reader’s mind), but without 
feeling a sincere admiration of the tenets of Christianity, and the 
character of its Founder; and without being impressed at the same 
time with this sentiment. That however miraculous the truth of 
our religion may appear, we must assent to propositions equally 
miraculous, before we can conclude it to be false. 

It seems, at last, to have roused the episcopal bench into a due 
sense of his services; and he was made a sub-dean of Lincoln, by 
bishop Pretyman, and received the valuable living of Bishop’s 
Wearmouth, from the bishop of Durham, and the prebend of St. 
Pancras, from the bishop of London. 

In 1795 he was created DD. by the university of Cambridge; 
and his health not allowing him to officiate in the pulpit, he under¬ 
took the compilation of his “ Natural Theology, or Evidences of the 
Existence and Attributes of the Deity, collected from the Appear¬ 
ances of Nature,” 8vo; which, however, was not published until 
1802. This disquisition alone (he reminds us) was wanted to make 
up his works into a system; in which works the public have now 
before them, the Evidences of Natural Religion, the Evidences of 
Revealed Religion, and an Account of the Duties that result from 
both. His Theology may be classed among the most interesting 
books of the English language. We are carried by the author with 
unceasing delight through the most prominent wonders and striking 
contrivances of the whole creation. Where indolence before saw 
nothing to admire, it suddenly discovers the most ingenious designs, 
and elaborate workmanship; where apathy beheld no cause for 
affecting sentiments, it sees the most powerful reason to kindle with 
gratitude, and be awed with reverence to the Deity. It is a small 
objection to urge, that in his discussions upon the human frame. Dr. 

^ Paley is not, according to the modern discoveries of science, always 
anatomically correct. Truth does not require that any of his con¬ 
clusions should be retracted on account of this inaccuracy. His 
arguments against the atheistic schemes cannot be overthrown, 
even though some of his physiological descriptions may be dis¬ 
puted. If he had been a better anatomist, his reasonings in proof 
of a Deity would have been even more forcible than at present; 
because all the improvements in the knowledge of our own bodies, 
tend to unfold more and more the curious subtilty of their mechan¬ 
ism. For those who do not study the human structure profession- 


Vlll 


MEMOIR OP THE AUTHOR. 


ally, Pale/s delineation is sufficiently correct: others, who are re 
quired to be rigid anatomists, will obtain from his book something 
more interesting than technical knowledge; they will be delighted 
with acute reflections, and devout speculations upon universal 
nature. 

Such was the favorable reception of this work, that it reached a 
tenth edition before the expiration of three years. 

This was his last publication, his death taking place on the 25th 
of May, 1805, in his sixty-second year. He left four sons and four 
daughters by his first wife, and a second wife who survived him. 

In private life. Dr. Paley seems to have exhibited very little of 
he gravity of the philosopher, being fond of amusement and com¬ 
pany, whom no one could better entertain, by a spontaneous ex¬ 
hibition of wit and humor. At the same time, no man was more 
beloved by his friends, or evinced more attachment to them in re¬ 
turn. It is said, that Mr. Pitt wished to make him a bishop, but 
that objections prevailed in a high quarter in the church; but 
whether on account of suspicions of his orthodoxy, or any other 
latent reason, is not known. As a writer. Dr. Paley was less so¬ 
licitous to delight the ear than inform the understanding; yet few 
authors have written so pleasingly on similar subjects, and there is, 
both in his conceptions and language, a peculiarity of manner 
which marks the native vigor of his mind. After his death, a 
volume of his sermons was published in 8vo; and he was also au¬ 
thor of two small pieces, entitled, “ The Clergyman’s Companion to 
the Sick;” and “The Young Christian Instructed.” 

This short sketch of the author’s life and works cannot better be 
terminated than by subjoining the following remarks, from the pen 
of the Rev. Dr. Alexander, of Princeton, N. J. 

“ This treatise is one concerning which it is wholly unnecessary 
for me to speak, by way of commendation. Paley’s Evidences 
is a work, which by its merit has become a text-book in the higher 
seminaries of learning, both in Great Britain, and in this country; 
and as long as our educated young men are required carefully 
to study this manual, there will be small danger of their being 
led away by the plausible but flimsy objections of deists. 

“Few men have ever lived who were as well qualified to esti¬ 
mate the value of historic evidence, and to form an impartial judg¬ 
ment of the force of human testimony, as Doctor Paley. His per 


MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. ix 

spicacity of intellect, his sobriety of judgment, his unbiassed love 
of truth, and his patient investigation of all circumstances, fitted 
him peculiarly for the defence of the great principles of natural 
and revealed theology. If any fraud or imposture had existed in 
regard to the Christian religion, by which the minds of others had 
been blinded, it would be difficult, from the whole catalogue of 
the learned, to select a man better suited to detect and dispel the 
illusion. He is less profound than Butler, but his views-and rea¬ 
sonings are much more on a level with the understanding of the 
bulk of mankind. The former collects and converges to a focus 
the feeble and scattered rays of light which pass unnoticed by- 
others ; the latter, neglecting weak arguments, seizes on the strong 
points of evidence in every subject, and exhibits them in a light so 
clear and steady, that he carries along with him the convictions of 
every mind, not closed against the force of truth, by strong and in¬ 
veterate prejudice. Thus in his Evidences he fixes on a single 
fact, the truth of which cannot be denied; namely, that in the 
commencement of the Christian religion many persons did volun¬ 
tarily undergo the severest sufferings and persecutions in confirma¬ 
tion of their faith in this system. This fact, as we have seen, is 
fully attested by the highest Heathen as well as Christian authori¬ 
ties, and is now questioned by none. On this single point Paley 
erects his battery, and his conclusion cannot be evaded without 
a renunciation of common sense, orfof the commonly-received 
laws of evidence. It detracts something from the interest, and in 
my opinion, from the effect of this treatise, that the author con¬ 
sidered it necessary to descend to so many minute details, in estab¬ 
lishing the authenticity of the sacred books of the New Testament. 
To others, however, this work of Paley seems, in all respects, to 
approximate perfection. The pious and philanthropic Douglas, of 
Scotland, in a late work, expresses it as his opinion, that Euclid’s 
Elements, and Paley’s Evidences, are the only two treatises 
which are perfectly adapted to the business of elementary instruc¬ 
tion. This opinion from a mind so comprehensive and so highly 
gifted as that of the gentleman above mentioned, cannot but 
recommend this work to the careful perusal of all such persons as 
wish for full information and complete satisfaction on this mo¬ 
mentous subject.’ 


S' ’ , , ■'^- '''■’■■ 




r? 


iC 


p 


V 

» 

■ v; 




s-" * 




-H 


^1 


;,! i 

1 . ' * 


. .j -‘■^ 



' -J-#. 

1 *1^-^ 


i « 


^ • # 


' •. W 










^■\ . \ ' ■ , M ■ ■ 

** , !? ... \ -i ,-A '■ *' < ‘ I 

■ ■" ’~ *.. L .. - '^- , ’ ' ' ■■ - 


■ -vr -■ .'• 




■ • ^ * <^- 

*i^y< .... 

n!j'VX' > - ‘' > ■ f;.i' \ ■ 


at - j 


M-'- • 5 &'’ ‘ • ' I 





r ,''r 


;• 


i . 





- ■ : 


V' r • • V 
•«.v'-' ", -'M 

f.^. 




I ..r 




v> r 



:. M€*iK 


a 





‘-y/f ' ■ . 

^ » 




t% - 


j 



r- i/’SbV« 


>v» ^ 




•>;■ \ 









• I 





• 


' * ^ I 




( « 

. S' 




f 




« t 





'1 . 
. •• \ • f 


. i •>' 




4 ,' • • ^ •• • • f • ' • • 

j*^- „ •'*%,„...„'|^ .'i;,-.> ,y,4.Ti.,.. 
i ' y 'i , . . : ; f .:;r 

>:V. A ‘ 


t . 



•l 


• ' 

J 


1,^' 


>• ,. .-I' 

..^ V ' 


t 


t 


■ * 


vS 




H.*- 


I ' 






. •*..* 

. r.' 




•V:. 



■"'V 




CONTENTS 


OP 

PALEY’S EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. > 


Preparatory Considerations.—Of the antecedent credibility of mira¬ 
cles .Page 15 

PART I. 

OF THE DIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY, AND WHEREIN 
IT IS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE EVIDENCE ALLEGED FOR OTHER 
MIRACLES. 19 

PROPOSITION I. 

That there is satisfactory evidence, that many, professing to be 
original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in 
labors, dangers, and sufferings voluntarily undergone in attesta¬ 
tion of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in conse¬ 
quence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also sub¬ 
mitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct. 20 

CHAP. I.—Evidence of the suflferings of the first propagators of 

Christianity, from the nature of the case . ib. 

CHAP. II.—Evidence of the sufferings of the first propagators of 

Christianity, from Profane testimony . 27 

CHAP. III.—Indirect evidence of the sufferings of the first propaga¬ 
tors of Christianity from the Scriptures and other ancient Christian 

toritings . 31 

CHAP. IV.—Direct evidence of the same . 34 

CHAP. V.—Observations on the preceding evidence. 43 

CHAP. VI.—That the story, for which the first propagators of Chris¬ 
tianity suffered, was miraculous . 47 

CHAP. VII.—^That it was, in the main, the story which we have 

now proved, by indirect considerations. 49 

CHAP. VIII.—The same proved, from the authority of our historical 

Scriptures. *. . 58 

CHAP. IX.—Of the authenticity of the historical Scriptures. 67 

11 















XU 


CONTENTS. 


Sect. I.—Cluotations of the historical Scriptures by ancient 

Christian writers .. 71 

Sect. II.—Of the peculiar respect with which they were quoted 87 
Sect. III.—The Scriptures were in very early times collected 

into a distinct volume . 89 

Sect, IV.—And distinguished by appropriate names and titles 

of respect. 92 

Sect. V.—Were publicly read and expounded in the religious 

assemblies of the early Christians. 93 

Sect. VI.—Commentaries, &c. were anciently written upon the 

Scriptures. 95 

Sect. VII.—They were received by ancient Christians of differ¬ 
ent sects and persuasions. 98 

Sect. VIII.—The four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thir¬ 


teen Epistles of Saint Paul, the first Epistle of John, and the 


First of Peter, were received without doubt by those who 

doubted concerning the other books of our present canon. 103 

Sect. IX.—Our present Gospels were considered by the adversa¬ 
ries of Christianity, as containing the accounts upon which 

the religion was founded. lOG 

Sect. X.—Formal catalogues of authentic Scriptures were pub¬ 
lished, in all which our'present Gospels were included... 109 

Sect. XL—The above propositions cannot be predicated of any 
of those books which are commonly called apocryphal books 

of the New Testament.Ill 

CHAP. X.—Recapitulation. 114 

PROPOSITION II. 

That there is not satisfactory evidence, that persons pretending to 
be original witnesses of any other similar miracles, have acted in 
the same manner, in attestation of the accounts which they de¬ 


livered, and solely in consequence of their belief of the truth of 


those accounts. 117 

CHAP. I...... ib. 

CHAP. II. 129 


PART II. 


THE AUXILIARY EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 

CHAP. I.—Prophecy.. 

CHAP. II.—The morality of the Gospel. 142 

CHAP. III.—The candor of the writers of the New Testament.. 161 




















CONTENTS. 


XUl 


CHAP. IV.— Identity of Christ's character... 167 

CHAP. Y.—Originality of Christ’s character.. I 75 

CHAP. YL—Conformity of the facts occasionally mentioned or re- 
ferred to in Scripture, with the state of things in those times, as 

represented by foreign and independent accounts. 176 

CHAP. VII.—Undesigned Coincidences . I 95 

CHAP. VIII.—Of the History of the Resurrection . I 97 

CHAP. IX.—Of the Propagation of Christianity. I 99 

Sect. I.—In what degree, within what time, and to what extent 

Christianity was actually propagated.200 

Sect. II.—Reflections upon the preceding Account.211 

Sect. III.—Of the success of Mahometanism.. 216 


PART III. 

I 

A BRIEF CONSIDERATION OF SOME POPULAR OBJECTIONS. 

CHAP. I.—The Discrepancies between the several Gospels.225 

CHAP. 11.—Erroneous Opinions imputed to the Apostles.227 

CHAP. III.—The connexion of Christianity with the Jewish History 230 

CHAP. IV.—of Christianity....232 

CHAP. V.—That the Christian miracles are not recited, or appealed 
to by early Christian writers themselves so fully or frequently as 

might have been expected. 211 

CHAP. VI.—Want of universality in the knowledge and reception 

of Christianity, and of greater clearness in the evidence.216 

CHAP. VII.—The supposed Effects of Christianity. 251 

CHAP. VIII. Conclusion ... 255 

/ 


B 

% 

























\ ^ * 


.1 •* f ^ 


• Y 




; .*5< V ' ' : 






■ /I • 

• • « 


» rir • 


^ • 


/■ 






' ~ *6 


''-i 






A VIEW 


OF 


THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY 


PREPARATORY CONSIDERATIONS. 

I DEEM it unnecessary to prove, that mankind stood in need of a 
revelation, because I have met with no serious person who thinks 
that, even under the Christian revelation, wc have too much light, 
or any degree of assurance, which is superfluous. I desire, more¬ 
over, that in judging of Christianity, it may be remembered, that 
the question lies between this religion and none: for if the Chris¬ 
tian religion be not credible, no one, with whom we have to do, will 
support the pretensions of any other. 

Suppose, then, the world we live in to have had a Creator; sup¬ 
pose it to appear, from the predominant aim and tendency of the 
provisions and contrivances observable in the universe, that the 
Deity, when he formed it, consulted for the happiness of his sensi¬ 
tive creation; suppose the disposition which dictated this counsel to 
continue; suppose a part of the creation to have received faculties 
from their Maker, by which they are capable of rendering a moral 
obedience to his will, and of voluntary pursuing any end for which 
he has designed them; suppose the Creator to intend for these, his 
rational and accountable agents, a second state of existence, in 
w hich their situation will be regulated by their behavior in the first 
state, by which supposition (and by no other) the objection to the 
divine government in not putting a difference between the good and 
the bad, and the inconsistency of this confusion with the care and 
benevolence discoverable in the works of the Deity, is done away; 
suppose it to be of the utmost importance to the subjects of this dis¬ 
pensation to know what is intended for them; that is, suppose the 
knowledge of it to be highly conducive to the happiness of the 
species, a purpose which so many provisions of nature are calcu¬ 
lated to promote; suppose, nevertheless, almost the whole race, 
either by the imperfection of their faculties, the misfortune of their 
situation, or by the loss of some prior revelation, to want this know¬ 
ledge, and not to be likely without the aid of a new revelation to 
attain it:—^under these circumstances, is it improbable that a reve¬ 
lation should be made ? is it incredible that God should interpose for 
such a purpose ? Suppose him to design for mankind a future state; 
is it unlikely that he should acquaint him with it ? 

15 



Paley's View of the 


‘.6 


Of the antecedent Credibility of Miracles. 

Now in what way can a revelation be made but by miracles? In 
none which we are able to conceive. Consequently in whateyer 
degree it is probable, or not very improbable, that a revelation 
should be communicated to mankind at all; in the same degree is 
it probable, or not very improbable, that miracles should be wrought. 
Therefore when miracles are related to have been wrought in the 
promulgating of a revelation manifestly wanted, and, if true, of in¬ 
estimable value, the improbability which arises from the miraculous 
nature of the things related, is no greater than the original improba¬ 
bility that such a revelation should be imparted by God. 

I wish it however to be correctly understood, in what manner, 
and to what extent, this argument is alleged. We do not assume 
the attributes of the Deity, or the existence of a future state, in or¬ 
der to prone the reLaty of miracles. The reality always must be 
proved by evidence. We assert only that in miracles adduced in 
support of revelation, there is not any such antecedent improbability 
as no testimony can surmount. Andf for the purpose of maintaining 
this assertion, we contend that the incredibility of miracles related 
to have been wrought in attestation of a message from God, con¬ 
veying intelligence of a future state of rewards and punishments, 
and teaching mankind how to prepare themselves for that state, is 
not in itself greater than the event, call it either probable or im¬ 
probable, of the two following propositions being true: namely, 
first, that a future state of existence should be destined by God for 
his human creation; and, secondly, that being so destined, he should 
acquaint them with it. It is not necessary for our purpose, that 
these propositions be capable of proof, or even that by arguments 
drawn from the light of nature, they can be made out to be proba¬ 
ble ; it is enough that we are able to say concerning them, that 
they are not so violently improbable, so contradictoiy to what we 
already believe of the divine power and character, that either the 
propositions themselves, or facts strictly connected with the proposi¬ 
tions (and therefore no farther improbable than they are improbable), 
ought to be rejected at first sight, and to be rejected by whatever 
strength or complication of evidence they be attested. 

This is the prejudication we would resist. For to this length does 
a modern objection to miracles go, viz. that no human testimony can 
in any case render them credible. I think the reflection above 
tated, that if there be a revelation, there must be miracles, and 
hat under the circumstances in which the human species are placed, 
a revelation is not improbable, or not improbable in any great de¬ 
gree, to be a fair answer to the w^hole objection. 

But since it is an objection which stands in the very threshold of 
our argument, and, if admitted, is a bar to every proof, and to all 
future reasoning upon the subject, it may be necessary, before we 
proceed farther, to examine the principle upon which it professes to 
be founded; which principle is concisely this, That it is contrary to 


Evidences of Christianity. 17 

experience that a miracle should be true, but not contrary to expe¬ 
rience that testimony should be false. 

Now there appears a small ambiguity in the term ‘ experience,* 
and in the phrases ‘ contrary to experience,’ or ‘ contradichng expe¬ 
rience,’ which it may be necessary to remove in the first place. 
Strictly speaking, the narrative of a fact is then only contrary to ex¬ 
perience, when the fact is related to have existed at a time and 
place, at which time and place we being present did not perceive it 
to exist; as if it should be asserted that, in a particular room, and at 
a particular hour of a certain day, a man was raised from the dead, 
in which room, and at the time specified, we being present, and 
looking on, perceived no such event to have taken place. Here the 
assertion is contrary to experience, properly so called: and this is a 
contrariety which no evidence can surmount. It matters nothing 
whether the fact be of a miraculous nature or not. But although 
this be the experience and the contrariety, which archbishop TilJot- 
son alleged in the quotation with which Mr. Hume opens his essay, 
it is certainlv not that experience, nor that contrariety, which Mr. 
Hume himself intended to object. And short of this, I know no in¬ 
telligible signification w’hich can be affixed to the term ‘ contrary to 
experience,’ but one, viz. that of not having ourselves experienced 
any thing similar to the thing related, or such things not being gene¬ 
rally experienced by others. I say ' not generallyfor to state con¬ 
cerning the fact in question, that no such thing was ever experienced, 
or that universal experience is against it, is to assume the subject of 
the controversy. 

Now the improbability which arises from the want (for this prop¬ 
erly is a want, not a contradiction) of experience, is only equal to 
the probability there is that, if the thing were true, we should ex¬ 
perience things similar to it, or that such things would be generally 
experienced. Suppose it then to be true that miracles were wrought 
on the first promulgation of Christianity, when nothing but miracles 
could decide its authority, is it certain that such miracles could be 
repeated so often, and in so many places, as to become objects of 
general experience ? Is it a probability approaching to certainty ? is 
it a probability of any great strengtn or force? is it such as no 
evidence can encounter ? And yet this probability is the exact c<m- 
verse, and therefore the exact measure, of the improbability which 
arises from the want of experience, and which Mr. Hume represents 
as invincible by human testimony. 

It is not like alleging a new law of nature, or a new experiment 
in natural philosophy; because when these are related, it is ex- 

{ tected that under the same circumstances, the same effect will fob 
ow universally; and in proportion as this expectation is justly en¬ 
tertained, the want of a corresponding experience negatives the 
history. But to expect concerning a miracle, that it should succeed 
upon a repetition, is to expect that which would make it cease to be 
a miracle, which is contrary to its nature as such, and would totally 
destroy the use and purpose for which it was wrought. 

The force of experience, as an objection to miracles, is founded 

B2 


18 Paley's View of the 

in the presumption, either that the course of nature is invariable, or 
that if it be ever varied, variations will be frequent and general 
Has the necessity of this alternative been demonstrated ? Permit us 
to call the course of nature the agency of an intelligent Being; and 
is there any good reason for judging this state of the case to be 
probable ? Ought we not rather to expect that such a Being, on oc¬ 
casions of peculiar importance, may interrupt the order which he 
had appointed, yet that such occasions should return seldom ; that 
these interruptions consequently should be confined to the expe¬ 
rience of a few; that the want of it, therefore, in many, should be 
matter neither of surprise nor objection. 

But as a continuation of the argument from experience, it is said 
that when we advance accounts of miracles, we assign effects 
without causes, or we attribute effects to causes inadequate to the 
purpose, or to causes of the operation of which we have no expe¬ 
rience. Of what causes, we may ask, and of what effects does the 
objection speak ? If it be answered, that when we ascribe the cure 
of the palsy to a touch, of blindness to the anointing of the eyes 
with clay, or the raising of the dead to a word, we lay ourselves 
open to this imputation; we reply that we ascribe no such effects 
to such causes. We perceive no virtue or ener^ in these things 
more than in other things of the same kind. They are merely 
signs to connect the miracle with its end. The effect we ascribe 
simply to the volition of the Deity; of whose existence and power, 
not to say of whose presence and agency, we have previous and in^ 
dependent proof. We have therefore all we seek for in the works 
of rational agents,—a sufficient power and an adequate motive. In 
a word, once believe that there is a God, and miracles are not in¬ 
credible. 

Mr. Hume states the case of miracles to be a contest of opposite 
improbabilities; that is to say, a question whether it be more im¬ 
probable that the miracle should be true, or the testimony false: 
and this I think a fair account of the controversy. But herein I re¬ 
mark a want of argumentative justice, that, in describing the im¬ 
probability of miracles, he suppresses all those circumstances of 
extenuation which result from our knowledge of the existence, 
power, and disposition of the Deity; his concern in the creation, the 
end answered by the miracle, the importance of that end, and its 
subserviency to the plan pursued in the work of nature. As Mr- 
Hume has represented the question, miracles are alike incredible to 
him who is previously assured of the constant agency of a Divine 
Being, and to him who believes that no such Being exists in the 
universe. They are equally incredible, whether related to have 
been wrought upon occasions the most deserving, and for purposes 
the most beneficial, or for no assignable end whatever, or for an 
end confessedly trifling or pernicious. This surely cannot be a cor¬ 
rect statement. In adjusting also the other side of the balance, the 
strength and weight of testimony, this author has provided an an¬ 
swer to every possible accumulation of historical proof, by telling us, 
that we are not obliged to explain how the story of the evidence arose 


Evidence of Christianity. 19 

Now I think that we are obliged; not, perhaps, to show by positive 
accounts how it did, but by a probable hypothesis how it might, so 
happen. The existence of the testimony is a phenomenon; the 
truth of the fact solves the phenomenon. If we reject this solution, 
we ought to have some other to rest in; and none, even by our ad¬ 
versaries, can be admitted, which is not inconsistent with the prin¬ 
ciples that regulate human affairs and human conduct at present, or 
which makes men then to have been a different kind of beings from 
what they are now. 

But the short consideration which, independently of every other, 
convinces me that there is no solid foundation in Mr. Hume’s con¬ 
clusion, is the following. When a theorem is proposed to a mathe¬ 
matician, the first thing he does with it is to try it upon a simple 
case, and if it produce a false result, he is sure that there must be 
some mistake in the demonstration. Now to proceed in this way 
with what may be called Mr. Hume’s theorem. If twelve men, 
whose probity and good sense I had long known, should seriously 
and circumstantially relate to me an account of a miracle wrought 
before their eyes, and in which it was impossible that they should 
be deceived; if the governor of the country, hearing a rumor of 
this account, should call these men into his presence, and offer them 
a short proposal, either to confess the imposture, or submit to be tied 
up to a gibbet; if they should refuse with one voice to acknowledge 
that there existed any falsehood or imposture in the case; if this 
threat were communicated to them separately, yet with no different 
effect; if it was at last executed ; if I myself saw them, one after 
another, consenting to be racked, burnt, or strangled, rather than 
give up the truth of their account; still, if Mr. Hume’s rule be my 
guide, I am not to believe them. Now I undertake to say, that 
there exists not a sceptic in the world who would not believe them, 
or who would defend such incredulity. 

Instances of spurious miracles, supported by strong apparent tes¬ 
timony, undoubtedly demand examination; Mr. Hume has endea¬ 
vored to fortify his argument by some examples of this kind. I hope 
in a proper place to show, that none of them reach the strength or 
circumstances of the Christian evidence. In these, however, con¬ 
sists the weight of his objection : in the principle itself, I am per¬ 
suaded, there is none. 


PART I. 

OF THE DIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY AND 
WHEREIN IT IS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE EVIDENCE ALLEGED 
FOR OTHER MIRACLES. 

The two propositions which I shall endeavor to establish are 
these; 

I. That there is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be 
original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in 



20 


Paley^s View of the 

labors, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation 
of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of 
their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from 
the same motives, to new rules of conduct. 

II. That there is not satisfactory evidence, that persons professing 
to be original witnesses of other miracles, in their nature as certain 
as these are, have ever acted in the same manner, in attestation of 
the accounts which they delivered, and properly in consequence 
of their belief of these accounts. 

The first of these propositions, as it forms the argument, will stand 
at the heed of the following nine chapters. 

PROPOSITION 1. 

* There is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be original wiu 
nesses to the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labors, dangers, and 
sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which 
they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts ; 
and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of con¬ 
duct.' 

CHAP. I. 

Evidence of the Sufferings of the First Propagators of Christianity, 
from the nature of the case. 

To support this proposition, two points are necessary to be made 
out: first, that the Founder of the institution, his associates and im¬ 
mediate followers, acted the part which the proposition imputes to 
them: secondly, that they did so in attestation of the miraculous 
history recorded in our Scriptures, and solely in consequence of 
their belief of the truth of this history. 

Before we produce any particular testimony to the activity and 
sufferings which compose the subject of our first assertion, it will 
be proper to consider the degree of probability which the assertion 
derives from the nature of the case, that is, by inferences from those 
parts of the case which, in point of fact, are on all hands acknow- 
le^ed. 

first, then, the Christian religion exists, and therefore by some 
means or other was established. Now it either owes the principle 
of its establishment, i. e. its first publication, to the activity of the 
Person who was the founder of the institution, and of those who 
were joined with him in the undertaking, or we are driven upon 
the strange supposition, that, although they might lie by, others 
would take it up; although they were quiet and silent, other per¬ 
sons busied themselves in the success and propagation of their 
story. This is perfectly incredible. To me it appears little less 
than certain, that, if the first announcing of the religion by the 
Founder had not I een followed up by the zeal and industry of his 
immediate discipl ts, the attempt must have expired in its birth 
'1 den as to the kin d and degree of exertion which was employed 


Evidences of Christianity. 21 

and the mode of life to which these persons submitted, we reasona¬ 
bly suppose it to be like that which we observe in all others who 
voluntarily become missionaries of a new faith. Frequent, earnest 
and laborious preaching, constantly conversing with religious per¬ 
sons upon religion, a sequestration from the common pleasures, en¬ 
gagements, and varieties of life, and an addiction to one serious ob¬ 
ject, compose the habits of such men. I do not say ithat this mode 
of life is without enjoyment, but I say that the enjoyment springs 
from sincerity. With a consciousness at the bottom of hollowness 
and falsehood, the fatigue and restraint would become insupporta¬ 
ble. 1 am apt to believe that very few hypocrites engage in these 
undertakings ; or, however, persist in them long. Ordinarily speak¬ 
ing, nothing can overcome the indolence of mankind, the love 
which is natural to most tempers of cheerful society and cheerful 
scenes, or the desire which is common to all, of personal ease and 
freedom, but conviction. 

Secondly, it is also highly probable, from the nature of the case, 
that the propagation of the new religion was attended with difficulty 
and danger. As addressed to the Jews, it was a system adverse not 
only to their habitual opinions, but to those opinions upon which 
their hopes, their partialities, their pride, their consolation, was 
founded. This people, with or without reason, had worked them¬ 
selves into a persuasion, that some signal and greatly advantageous 
change was to be effected in the condition of their country, by the 
agency of a long-promised messenger from heaven.* The rulers 
of the Jews, their leading sect, their priesthood, had been the au¬ 
thors of this persuasion to the common people; so that it was not 
merel}^ the conjecture of theoretical divines, or the secret expecta¬ 
tion of a few recluse devotees, but it was become the popular hope 
and passion, and like all popular opinions, undoubting, and impatient 
of contradiction. They clung to this hope under every misfortune 
of their country, and 'with more tenacity as their dangers or calami¬ 
ties increased. To find, therefore, that expectations so gratifying 
were to be worse than disappointed; that they were to end in the 
diffusion of a mild unambitious religion, which, instead of victories 
and triumphs, instead of exalting their nation and institution above 
the rest of the world, was to advance those whom they despised to 
an equality with themselves, in those very points of comparison in 
which they most valued their own distinction, could be no very 
pleasing discovery to a Jewish mind; nor could the messengers of 
such intelligence expect to be well received or easily credited. The 
doctrine was equally harsh and novel. The extending of the king¬ 
dom of God to those who did not conform to the law of Moses, was 
a notion that had never before entered into the thoughts of a Jew. 


‘ Percrebuerat oriente toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis, ut eo 
tempore Judma profecti rerum potirentur.’—Sueton. Vespasian, cap. 4—8. 

‘ Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum litei is contineri, eo 
ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret oriens, profectique Judaea rerum potiren¬ 
tur.’—Tacit. Hist. lib. v. cap. 9—13. 



22 


Paley*s View of the 

The character of the new institution was, in other repects also, 
ungrateful to Jewish habits and principles. Their own religion was 
in a high degree technical. Even the enlightened Jew placed a 
great deal of stress upon the ceremonies of his law, saw in them a 
great deal of virtue and efficacy; the gross and vulgar had scarcely 
any thing else; and the hypocritical and ostentatious magnified them 
above measur^, as being the instruments of their own reputation 
and influence. The Christian scheme, without formally repealing 
the Levitical code, lowered its estimation extremely. In the place 
of strictness and zeal in performing the observances which that code 
prescribed, or which tradition had added to it, the new sect preached 
up faith, well-regulated affections, inward purity, and moral recti¬ 
tude of disposition, as the true ground, on the part of the worship¬ 
per, of merit and acceptance with God. This, however rational it 
may appear, or recommending to us at present, did not by any means 
facilitate the plan then. On the contrary, to disparage those quali¬ 
ties which the highest characters in the country valued themselves 
most upon, was a sure w'ay of making powerful enemies. As if the 
frustration of the national hope was not enough, the long-esteemed 
merit of ritual zeal and punctuality was to be decried, and that by 
Jews preaching to Jews. 

The ruling party at Jerusalem had just before crucified the 
Founder of the religion. That is a fact which will not be disputed. 
They, therefore, who stood forth to preach the religion, must neces¬ 
sarily reproach these rulers with an execution, which they could 
not but represent as an unjust and cruel murder. This would not 
render their office more easy, or their situation more safe. 

With regard to the interference of the Roman government which 
was then established in Judea, I should not expect, that, despising 
as it did the religion of the country, it would, if left to itself, ani¬ 
madvert, either with much vigilance or much severity, upon the 
schisms and controversies which arose within it Yet there was 
that in Christianity which might easily afford a handle of accusa¬ 
tion with a jealous government. The Christians avowed an unqual¬ 
ified obedience to a new master. They avowed also that he w^as 
the person who had been foretold to the Jews under the suspected 
title of King. The spiritual nature of this kingdom, the consistency 
of this obedience with civil subjections, were distinctions too refined 
to be entertained by a Roman president, who viewed the business 
at a great distance, or through the medium of very hostile repre¬ 
sentations. Our histories accordingly inform us, that this was the 
turn which the enemies of Jesus gave to his character and preten¬ 
sions in their remonstrances with Pontius Pilate. And Justin Mar¬ 
tyr, about a hundred years afterward, complains that the same mis¬ 
take prevailed in his time: ‘Ye having heard that we are waiting 
for a kingdom, suppose, without distinguishing, that we mean a 
human kingdom, when in truth we speak of that which is with God.’* 


* Ap. Ima. p. 16. Ed. Thirl. 




Evidences of Christianity. 23 

And it was undoubtedly a natural source of calumny and miscon¬ 
struction. 

The preachers of Christianity had therefore to contend with pre¬ 
judice backed by power. They had to come forward to a disap¬ 
pointed people, to a priesthood possessing a considerable share of 
municipal authority, and actuated by strong motives of opposition 
and resentment; and they had to do this under a foreign govern 
ment, to whose favor they made no pretensions, and which was 
constantly surrounded by their enemies. The well-known, because 
the experienced fate of reformers, whenever the reformation sub¬ 
verts some reigning opinion, and does not proceed upon a change 
that has already taken place in the sentiments of a country, will 
not allow, much less lead us to suppose, that the first propagators 
of Christianity at Jerusalem, and in Judea, under the difficulties 
and the enemies they had to contend with, and entirely destitute as 
they were of force, authority, or protection, could execute their 
mission with personal ease and safety. 

Let us next inquire, what might reasonably be expected by the 
preachers of Christianity, when they turned themselves to the hea¬ 
then public. Now the first thing that strikes us is, that the religion 
they carried with them was exclusive. It denied Avithout reserve 
the truth of every article of heathen mythology, the existence of 
every object of their worship. It accepted no compromise; it admit¬ 
ted no comprehension. It must prevail, if it prevailed at all, by the 
overthrow of every statue, altar, and temple, in the world. It will 
not easily be credited, that a design, so bold as this was, could in 
any age he attempted to be carried into execution with impunity. 

For it ought to be considered, that this was not setting forth, or 
magnifying the character and worship of some new competitor for 
a place in the Pantheon, whose pretensions might be discussed or 
asserted without questioning the reality of any others; it was pro¬ 
nouncing all other gods to be false, and all other worship vain. 
I'rom the facility with which the polytheism of ancient nations 
admitted new objects of worship into the number of their acknow¬ 
ledged divinities, or the patience with which they might entertain 
proposals of this kind, we can argue nothing as to their toleration 
of a system, or of the publishers and active propagators of a system 
which swept away the very foundation of the existing establishment. 
The one was nothing more than what it would be, in popish coun¬ 
tries, to add a saint to the calendar; the other was to abohsh and 
tread under foot the calendar itself 

Secondly, it ought also to be considered, that this was not the case 
of philosophers propounding in their books, or in their schools, 
doubts concerning the truth of the popular creed, or even avoAving 
their disbelief of it. These philosophers did not go about from place 
to place to collect proselytes from amongst the common people; to 
form in the heart of the country societies professing their tenets; to 
provide for the order, instruction, and permanency of these socie¬ 
ties ; nor did they enjoin their followers to withclraw themselves 


24 Paley's View of the 

from the public worship of the temples,* or refuse a compliance 
with rites instituted by the laws. These things are what the Chris¬ 
tians did, and what the philosophers did not; and in these consisted 
the activity and danger of the enterprise. 

Thirdly, it ought also to be considered, that this danger proceeded 
not merely from solemn acts and public resolutions of the state, but 
from sudden bursts of violence at particular places, from the license 
of the populace, the rashness of some magistrates, and negligence of 
others; from the influence and instigation of interested adversaries, 
and in general, from the variety and warmth of opinion which an 
errand so novel and extraordinary could not fail of exciting. I can 
conceive that the teachers of Christianity might both fear and suffer 
much from these causes, without any general persecution being de¬ 
nounced against them by imperial authority. Some length of time, 

should suppose, might pass, before the vast machine of the Roman 
mpire would be put in motion, or its attention be obtained to reli¬ 
gious controversy: but, during that time, a great deal of ill usage 
might be endured, by a set of friendless, unprotected travellers, 
telling men, wherever they came, that the religion of their ances¬ 
tors, the religion in which they had been brought up, the religion of 
the state, and of the magistrate, the rites which they frequented, 
the pomp which they admired, was throughout a system of folly and 
delusion. 

Nor do I think that the teachers of Christianity would find pro¬ 
tection in that general disbelief of the popular theology, which is 
supposed to have prevailed amongst the intelligent part of the 
heathen public. It is by no means true that unbelievers are usually 
tolerant. They are not disposed (and w'hy should they ?) to endanger 
the present state of things, by suffering a religion of which they be¬ 
lieve nothing, to be disturbed by another of which they believe as 
little. They are ready themselves to conform to any thing; and 
are, oftentimes, amongst the foremost to procure conformity from 
others, by any method which they think likely to be efficacious. 
When was ever a change of religion patronized by infidels ? How 
little, notwithstanding the reigning scepticism, and the magnified 
liberality of that age, the true principles of toleration were under¬ 
stood by the wisest men amongst them, may be gathered from two 
eminent and uncontested examples. The younger Pliny, polished 
as he was by all the literature of that soft and elegant period, could 
gravely pronounce this monstrous judgment;—‘Those who persisted 
in declaring themselves Christians, I ordered to be led away to pun¬ 
ishment (i e. to execution), for I did not doubt, whatever it was that 
they confessed^ that contumacy and inflexible obstinacy ought to be 


* The best of the ancient philosophers, Plato, Cicero, and Epictetus, 
allowed, or rather enjoined, men to worship the gods of the country, and 
in the established form. See passages to this purpose, collected from their 
worKs, by Dr. Clarke, Nat. and Rev. Rel p. 180. ed. 5.—Except Socrates, 
they all thought it wiser to comply with the laws than to contend. 



Evidences of Christianity. 25 

punished' His master, Trajan, a mild and accomplished prince, 
went, nevertheless, no further in his sentiments of moderation and 
equity, than what appears in the following rescript: ‘ The Christians 
are not to be sought for: but if any are brought before you, and 
convicted, they are to be punished.’ And this direction he gives, 
after it had been reported to him by his own president, that, by the 
most strict examination nothing could be discovered in the principles 
of these persons, but ‘a bad and excessive superstition,’ accom¬ 
panied, it seems, with an oath or mutual federation, ‘ to allow them¬ 
selves in no crime, or immoral conduct whatever.’ The truth is, th 
ancient heathens considered religion entirely as an affair of state, a 
much under the tuition of the magistrate, as any other part of the 
police. The religion of that age was not merely allied to the state; 
It was incorporated into it. Many of its offices were administered 
by the magistrate. Its titles of pontiffs, augurs, and flamens, weie 
borne by senators, consuls, and generals. Without discussing, there¬ 
fore, the truth of ffieology, they resented every affront put upon the 
established worship, as a direct opposition to the authority of gov 
ernment 

Add to which, that the relimous systems of those times, however 
ill supported by evidence, had been long established. The ancient 
religion of a country has always many votaries, and sometimes not 
the fewer, because its origin is hidden in remoteness and obscurity. 
Men have a natural veneration for antiquity, especially in matters 
of religion. What Tacitus says of the Jewish, was more applicable 
to the heathen establishment; ‘ Hi ritus, quoquo modo inducti, an- 
tiquitale defenduntur.’ It was also a splendid and sumptuous wor¬ 
ship. It had its priesthood, its endowments, its temples. Statuary, 
painting, architecture, and music, contributed their effect to its orna¬ 
ment and magnificence. It abounded in festival shows and solem¬ 
nities, to which the common people are greatly addicted, and which 
were of a nature to engage them much more than any thing of that 
sort among us. These things would retain great numbers on its 
side by the fascination of spectacle and pomp, as well as interest 
many in its preservation by the advantage which they drew from it. 

‘ It was moreover interwoven,’ as Mr. Gibbon rightly represents it, 

‘ with every circumstance of business or pleasure, of public or pri¬ 
vate life, with all the offices and amusements of society.’ On the 
due celebration also of its rites, the people were taught to believe, 
and did believe, that the prosperity of their country in a great mea¬ 
sure depended. 

I am willing to accept the account of the matter which is given 
by Mr. Gibbon: ‘ The various modes of worship which prevailed 
in the Roman \yorld, were all considered by the people as equally 
true, by the philosopher as equally false, and by the magistrate as 
equally useful:’ and I would ask from which of these three classes 
of men were the Christian missionaries to look for protection or im¬ 
punity ? Could they expect it from the people, ‘ whose acknowledged 
confidence in the public religion ’ they subverted from its founda- 

C 


26 


Foley’s View of the ^ 

tion? From the philosopher, who, ‘considering all religions as 
equally false,’ would of course rank theirs among the number, with 
the addition of regarding them as busy and troublesome zealots i 
Or from the magistrate, who, satisfied with the ‘ utility ’ of the sub¬ 
sisting religion, would not be likely to countenance a spirit of prose- 
lytism and innovation;—a system which declared war against every ' 
Other, and which, if it prevailed, must end in a total rupture of 
public opinion; an upstart religion, in a word, which was not con¬ 
tent with its own authority, but must disgrace all the settled reh- 
gions in the world ? It was not to be imagined that he would endure 
with patience, that the religion of the emperor and of the state 
should be calumniated and borne down by a company of supersti¬ 
tious and despicable Jews. 

Lastly, the nature of the case affords a strong proof, that the original 
teachers of Christianity, in consequence of their new profession, en¬ 
tered upon a new and singular course of life. We may be allowed 
to presume, that the institution which they preached to others, they 
conformed to in their own persons; because this is no more than 
what every teacher of a new religion both does, and must do, in or¬ 
der to obtain either proselytes or hearers. The change which this 
would produce was very considerable. It is a change which we do 
not easily estimate, because, ourselves and all about us being habitu¬ 
ated to the institution from our infancy, it is what we neither expe¬ 
rience nor observe. After men became Christians, much of their 
time was spent in prayer and devotion, in religious meetings, in 
celebrating the eucharist, in conferences, in exhortations, in preach¬ 
ing, in an affectionate intercourse with other societies. Perhaps 
their mode of life, in its form and habit, was not very unlike the 
Unitas Fratrum, or the modern Methodists. Think then what it was 
to become such at Corinth, at Ephesus, at Antioch, or even at Jeru¬ 
salem, How new! how alien from all their former habits, and 
ideas, and from those of every body about them! What a revolu¬ 
tion there must have been of opinions and prejudices to bring the 
matter to this! 

We know what the precepts of the religion are: how pure, how 
benevolent, how disinterested a conduct they enjoin; and that this 
purity and benevolence are extended to tne very thoughts and 
affections. We are not, perhaps, at liberty to take for granted that 
the lives of the preachers of Christianity were as perfect as their 
lessons: but we are entitled to contend, that the observable part of 
their behavior must have agreed in a great measure with the duties 
which they taught. There was, therefore (which is all that we as¬ 
sert), a course of life pursued by them, different from that which 
they before led. And this is of great importance. Men are brought 
to any thing almost sooner than to change their habit of life, espe¬ 
cially when the change is either inconvenient, or made against the 
force of natural inclination, or with the loss of accustomed indul¬ 
gences. ‘It is the most difficult of all things to convert men from 
vicious habits to virtuous ones, as every one may judge from what 


Evidences of Christianity. 27 

he feels in himself, as well as from what he sees in others.’* It is 
almost like making men over again. ^ 

Left then to myself, and without any more information than a 
kno wledge of the existence of the religion, of the general story upon 
which it is founded, and that no act of power, force, and authority, 
"Was concerned in its first success, 1 should conclude, from the very 
nature and exigency of the case, that the Author of the religion 
during his life, and his immediate disciples after his death, exerted 
themselves in spreading and publishing the institution throughout 
the country in which it began, and into which it was first carried; 
that, in the prosecution of this purpose, they underwent the labors 
and troubles which we observe the propagators of new sects to 
undergo; that the attempt must necessarily have also been in a 
high degree dangerous; that, from the subject of the mission, com¬ 
pared with the fixed opinions and prejudices of those to whom the 
missionaries were to address themselves, they could hardly fail of 
encountering strong and frequent opposition ; that, by the hand of 
government, as well as from the sudden fury and unbridled license 
of the people, they would oftentimes experience injurious and cruel 
treatment j that, at any rate, they must have always had so much 
to fear for their personal safety, as to have passed their lives in a 
state of constant peril and anxiety; and, lastly, that their mode of 
life and conduct, visibly at least, corresponded with the institutions 
which they delivered, and, so far, was both new and required con¬ 
tinual self-denial. 


CHAP. XL 

Evidence of the Sufferings of the First Propagators of Christianity, 
from Profane Testimony. 

After thus considering what was likely to happen, we are next 
to inquire how the transaction is represented in the several ac¬ 
counts that have come down to us. And this inquiry is properly 
preceded by the other, forasmuch as the reception of these accounts 
may depend in part on the credibility of what they contain. 

The obscure and distant view of Christianity, which some of the 
heathen writers of that age had gained, and which a few passages 
in their remaining works incidentally discover to us, offers itself to 
our notice m the first place; because, so far as this evidence goes, 
it is the concession of adversaries; the source from which it is 
drawn is unsuspected. Under this head, a quotation from Tacitus, 
well known to every scholar, must be inserted, as deserving parti¬ 
cular attention. The reader will bear in mind thqt this passage 
was written about seventy years after Christ’s death, and that it re¬ 
lates to transactions which took place about thirty years after that 
event. Speaking of the fire which happened at Rome in the time 


Hartley’s Essays on Man, p. 190. 




28 


Paley's View of the 

of Nero, and of the suspicions which were entertained that the em¬ 
peror himself was concerned in causing it, the historian proceeds in 
his narrative and observations thus : 

‘ But neither these exertions, nor his largesses to the people, nor 
his offerings to the gods, did away the infamous imputation under 
which Nero lay, of having ordered the city to be set on fire. To 
put an end, therefore, to this report, he laid the guilt, and inflicted 
the most cruel punishments, upon a set of people who were holden 
in abhorrence for their crimes, and called by the vulgar, Christians. 
The founder of that name was Christ, who suffered death in the 
reign of 'I'iberius, under his procurator Pontius Pilate.—This per¬ 
nicious superstition, thus checked for awhile, broke out again; and 
spread not only over Judea, where the evil originated, but through 
Rome also, whither every thing bad upon the earth finds its way, 
and is practised. Some who confessed their sect, were seized, and 
afterward, by their information, a vast multitude were apprehended, 
who were convicted, not so much of the crime of burning Rome, 
as of hatred to mankind. Their sufferings at their execution were 
aggravated by insult and mockery; for some were disguised in the 
skin of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs ; some were cru¬ 
cified ; and others were wrapped in pitch shirts,* and set on fire 
when the day closed, that they might serve as lights to illuminate 
the night. Nero lent his own gardens for these executions, and 
exhibited at the same time a mock Circensian entertainment; 
being a spectator of the whole, in the dress of a charioteer, 
sometimes mingling wdth the crowd on foot, and sometimes view¬ 
ing the spectacle from his car. This conduct made the sufferers 
pitied; and though they were criminals, and deserving the severest 
punishments, yet they were considered as sacrificed, not so much 
out of a regard to the public good, as to gratify the cruelty of one 
man.’ 

Our concern with this passage at present is only so far as it affords 
a presumption in support of the proposition which we maintain, 
concerning the activity and sufferings of the first teachers of Chris¬ 
tianity. Now considered in this view, it proves three things: 1st, 
that the Founder of the institution was put to death; 2dly, that in 
the same country in which he was put to death, the religion, after 
a short check, broke out again and spread; that it so spread, as that, 
within thirty-four years from the Author’s death, a very great num¬ 
ber of Christians {ingens eorum multitudo) were found at Rome. 
From which fact, the two following inferences may be fairly drawn: 
first, that if, in the space of thirty-four years from its commencement, 
the religion had spread throughout Judea, had extended itself to 
Rome, and there had numbered a great multitude of converts, the 
original teachers and missionaries of the institution could not have 


* This IS rather a paraphrase, but is justified by what the Scholiast 
upon Juvenal says; ‘ Nero maleficos homines tseda et papyro et cera su- 
^rvestiebat, et sic ad ignem admoveri jubebat.’ Lard. Jewish and 
Heath. Test. vol. i. p. 359. 



Evidences of Christianity. 2S 

been idle ; secondly, that when the Author of the undertaking was 
put to death as a malefactor for his attempt, the endeavors of his 
followers to establish his religion in the same country, amongst the 
same people, and in the same age, could not but be attended with 
danger. 

Suetonius, a writer contemporary tvith Tacitus, describing the 
transactions of the same reign, uses these w'ords: ‘ Affecti suppliciis 
Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae et maleficae.’'^ ‘ The 
Christians, a set of men of a new and mischievous (or magical) su¬ 
perstition, were punished.’ 

Since it is not mentioned here that the burning of the city was 
the pretence of the punishment of the Christians, or that they were 
the Christians of Rome who alone suffered, it is probable that Sue¬ 
tonius refers to some more general persecution than the short and 
occasional one which Tacitus describes. 

Juvenal, a writer of the same age with the two former, and in¬ 
tending, it should seem, to commemorate the cruelties exercised 
under Nero’s government, has the following lines :t 

‘ Pone Tigelliniim, tseda lucebis in ilia 
Ciua stantes ardent, qui fixo gutture fiimant, 

Et latum media sulcum deducitj arena.’ 

Describe Tigellinus (a creature of Nero), and you shall suffer the 
same punishment with those who stand burning in their own flame 
and smoke, their head being held up by a stake fixed to their chin, 
till they make a long stream of blood and melted sulphur on the 
ground.’ 

If this passage were considered by itself, the subject of allusion 
might be doubtful; but, when connected with the testimony of 
Suetonius, as to the actual punishment of the Christians by Nero, 
and with the account given by Tacitus of the species of punish¬ 
ment which they were made to undergo, I think it sufficiently 
probable, that these were the executions to which the poet refers. 

These things, as has been already observed, took place within 
thirty-one years after Christ’s death, that is, according to the course 
of nature, in the lifetime, probably, of some of the apostles, and 
certainly in the lifetime of those who were converted by the apos¬ 
tles, or who were converted in their time. If then the Founder of 
the religion was put to death in the execution of his design ; if the 
first race of converts to the religion, many of them, suffered the 
greatest extremities for their profession ; it is hardly credible, that 
those who came between the two, w ho were companions of the Au¬ 
thor of the institution during his life, and the teachers and propaga¬ 
tors of the institution after his death, could go about their under¬ 
taking w’ith ease and safety. 

The testimony of the younger Pliny belongs to a later period ; 
for although he was contemporary with Tacitus and Suetonius, yet 
his account does not, like theirs, go back to the transactions of 


t Sat. i. ver. 155. J Fornas ‘ dediicis.’ 

C 2 


* Suet. Nero. cap. 16. 



30 Paley's View of the 

Nero’s reign, but is confined to the affairs of his own time. Hfs 
celebrated letter to Trajan was written about seventy years after 
Christ’s death; and the information to be dravvn from it, so far as 
it is connected with our argument, relates principally to two points: 
first, to the number of Christians in Bithynia and Pontus, which was 
so considerable as to induce the governor of these provinces to 
speak of them in the following terms: ‘ Multi, omnis statis, utrius- 
que sexus etiam;—neque enim civitates tantum, sed vicos etiam et 
agros, superstitionis istius contagio pervagata est.’ ‘There are 
many of every age and of both sexes;—nor has the contagion of 
this superstition seized cities only, but smaller towns also, and the 
open country.’ Great exertions must have been used by the preach¬ 
ers of Christianity to produce this state of things within this time. 
Secondly, to a point which has been already noticed, and which I 
think of importance to be observed, namely, the sufterings to which 
Christians were exposed, without any public persecution being de¬ 
nounced against them by sovereign authority. For, from Pliny’s 
doubt how he was to act, his silence concerning any subsisting law 
on the subject, his requesting the emperor’s rescript, and the empe¬ 
ror, agreeably to his request, propounding a rule for his direction, 
without reference to any prior rule, it may be inferred, that there 
was, at that time, no public edict in force against the Christians. 
Yet from this same epistle of Pliny it appears ‘ that accusations, 
trials, and examinations, were, and had been, going on against them 
in the provinces over which he presided; that schedules were de¬ 
livered by anonymous informers, containing the names of persons 
who were suspected of holding or of favoring the rehgion; that in 
consequence of these informations, many had been apprehended, of 
whom some boldly avowed their profession, and died in the cause; 
others denied that they were Christians; others, acknowledging 
that they had once been Christian, declared that they had long 
ceased to be such.’ All which demonstrates, that the profession of 
Christianity was at that time (in that country at least) attended 
with fear and danger: and yet this took place without any edict 
from the Roman sovereign, commanding or authorizing the persecu¬ 
tion of Christians. This observation is farther confirmed by a re¬ 
script of Adrian to Minucius Fundamus, the proconsul of Asia:* 
from which rescript it appears that the custom of the people of Asia 
was to proceed against the Christians with tumult and uproar. This 
disorderly practice, I say, is recognized in the edict, because the 
emperor enjoins, that for the future, if the Christians were guilty 
they should be legally brought to trial, and not be pursued by im 
portunity and clamor. 

Martial wrote a few years before the younger Pliny; and as his 
manner was, made the sufferings of the Christians the subject of 
his ridicule.t Nothing, however, could show the notoriety of the 

* Lard. Heath. Test. vol. ii. p. 110. 
t In matutina nuper spectatos arena 
Mucius, imposuit qui sua membra focis, 



Evidences of Christianity. 31 

fact with more certainty than this does. Martial’s testimony, as well 
indeed as Pliny’s, goes also to another point, viz. that the deaths of 
these men were martyrdoms in the strictest sense, that is to say, 
were so voluntary, that it was in their power, at the time of pro¬ 
nouncing the sentence, jn have averted the execution, by consenting 
to join in heathen sacrifices. 

The constancy, and by consequence the sufferings, of the Chris¬ 
tians of this period, is also referred to by Epictetus, who imputes 
their intrepidity to madness, or to a kind of .fashion or habit; and 
about fifty years afterward, by Marcus Aurelius, who ascribes it to 
obstinacy. ‘ Is it possible, (Epictetus asks,) that a man may arrive 
at this temper, and become indifferent to those things, from madness 
or from habit, as the Galileans ? ’* ‘ Let this preparation of the mind 
(to die) arise from its own judgment, and not from obstinacy like the 
Christiansli 


CHAP. III. 

Indirect Evidence <f the Sufferings of the First- Propagators of Chris¬ 
tianity, from the Scriptures, and other ancient Christian Writings. 

Of the primitive condition of Christianity, a distant only and gene¬ 
ral view can be acquired from heathen writers. It is in our own 
books that the detail and interior of the transaction must be sought 
for. And this is nothing different from what might be expected. 
Who would write a history of Christianity, but a Christian ? Who 
was likely to record the travels, sufferings, labors, or successes, of 
the apostles, but one of their own number, or of their followers ? 
Now these Ixioks come up in their accounts to the full extent of the 
proposition which we maintain. We have four histories of Jesus 
Christ We have a history taking up the narrative from his death, 
and carrying on an account of the propagation of the religion, and 
of some of the most eminent persons engaged in it, for a space of 
nearly thirty years. We have, what some ma.y think still more ori¬ 
ginal, a collection of letters, written by certain principal agents in 
the business, upon the business, and in the midst of their concern 
and connexion with it. And we have these writings severally 
attesting the point which we contend for, viz. the sufferings of the 
witnesses of the history, and attesting it in every variety of form in 
which it can be conceived to appear: directly and indirectly, ex¬ 
pressly and incidentally, by assertion, recital, and allusion, by narra- 


Si patiens fortisque tibi durusque videtur, 

Abderitan® pectora plebis babes; 

Nam '■um dicatur, tunica pr®sente molesta, 

Ure|| manum ; plus est dicere, Non facio. 

♦ Epict. 1. iv. c. 7. t Marc. Aur. Med. 1. xi. c. 3. 


II Forsan ‘ thure manum.’ 



32 


Paley'^s View of the 

tives of facts, and by arguments and discourses built upon theso 
facts, either referring to them, or necessarily presupposing them. 

I remark this variety, because, in examining ancient records, or 
indeed any species of testimony, it is, in my opinion, of the greatest 
importance to attend to the information or grounds of argument 
which are casually and undesignedly disclosed; forasmuch as this 
species of proof is, of all others, the least liable to be corrupted by 
fraud or misrepresentation. 

I may be allowed, therefore, in the inquiry which is now before 
us, to suggest some .conclusions of this sort, as preparatory to more 
direct testimony. 

1. Our books relate, that Jesus Christ, the founder of the religion, 
was, in consequence of his undertaking, put to death, as a malefac¬ 
tor, at Jerusalem. This point at least will be granted, because it is 
no more than what Tacitus has recorded. They then proceed to 
tell us, that the religion was, notwilhslauding, set forth at this same 
city of Jerusalem, propagated thence throughout Judea, and after¬ 
ward preached in other parts of the Roman empire. These points 
also are fully confirmed by Tacitus, who informs us, that the reli¬ 
gion, after a short check, broke out again in the country where it 
took its rise; that it not only spread throughout Judea, but had 
reached Rome, and that it had there great multitudes of converts: 
and all this within thirty years after its commencement. Now these 
facts afibrd a strong inference in behalf of the proposition which 
we maintain. What could the disciples of Christ expect for them¬ 
selves when they saw their Master put to death ? Could they hope 
to escape the dangers in which he had perished ? If they have per¬ 
secuted me, they wall also persecute you, was the warning of com¬ 
mon sense. With this example before their eyes, they could not be 
without a full sense of the peril of their future enterprise. 

2. Secondly, all the histones agree in representing Christ as fore¬ 
telling the persecution of his followers:— 

‘Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill yciu, 
and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.’* 

‘ When affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, imme¬ 
diately they are offended.’t 

‘ They shall lay hands on you, and persecute you, delivering yj)u 
up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kmgs 
and rulers for my name’s sake :—and ye shall be betrayed both by 
parents and brethren, and kinsfolks and friends; and some of you 
shall they cause to be put to death.’f 

‘The time cometh, that he that killeth you will think that he 
doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because 
they have not known the Father, nor me. But these things have I 
told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I 
told you of them.’§ 


* Matt. xxiv. 9. f Mark iv. 17. See also chap. x. 30. 

J Luke xxi. 12—16. See also chap. xi. 49. 

I John xvi. 4. See also chap. xv. 20. xvi. 33. 



Evidences of Christianity. 33 

I am not entitled to argue from these passages, that Christ actu¬ 
ally did foretell these events, and that they did accordingly come to 
p^s; because that would be at once to assume the truth of the reli¬ 
gion: but I am entitled to contend, that one side or other of the fol¬ 
lowing disjunction is true; either that the evangelists have deliv¬ 
ered what Christ really spoke, and that the event corresponded 
with the prediction; or that they put the prediction into Christ’s 
mouth, because, at the time of writing the history, the event had 
turned out so to be: for, the only two remaining suppositions appear 
in the highest degree incredible; which are, either that Christ filled 
the minds of his followers with fears and apprehensions, without 
any reason or authority for what he said, and contrary to the truth 
of the case; or that, although Christ had never foretold any such 
tWng, and the event would have contradicted him if he had, yet 
historians, who lived in the age when the event was known, falsely, 
as well ^ officiously, ascribed these words to him. 

3. Thirdly, these books abound with exhortations to patience, and 
with topics of comfort under distress. 

‘ Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, 
or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword ? 
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him 
that loved us.’* 

‘ We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are per- 

E lexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, 
ut not destroyed; always bearing about in the body the dying of 
the Lord Jesus, that the life also of* Jesus might be made mannest 
in our bodyknowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall 
raise us up also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.—For which 
cause we faint not; but, though our outward man perish, yet the 
inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which 
is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eter¬ 
nal weight of glory.’t 

‘ Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name 
of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and patience. 
Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have neard of 
die patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord, that the 
Lord is very pitiful, and of tender mercy.’f 
‘ Call to remembrance the former days in which, after ye were 
illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions, partly whilst ye 
were made a gazing-stock both by reproaches and afflictions, and 
partly whilst ye became companions of them that were so used; for 
ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling 
of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a 
better and an enduring substance. Cast not away, therefore, your 
confidence, which hath great recompense of reward; for ye have 
need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might 
receive the promise.’$ 


* Rom. viii. 35—37. 
X James v. 10,11. 


12 Cor. iv. 8—10.14.16,17. 
§ Heb. X. 32—36. 




34 


Paley's View of the 

‘ So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God, for 
your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that 
ye endure. Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment 
of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom for which 
ye also suffer.’* 

‘ We rejoice in hope of the glory of God ; and not only so, but we 
glory in tribulations also; knowing that tribulation worketh patience, 
and patience experience, and experience hope.’t 

‘ Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is 
to tiy you, as though some strange thing happened unto you; but 

rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings.-- 

Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God, commit 
the keeping of their souls to him in well-doing, as unto a faithful 
Creator.’t 

What could all these texts mean, if there was nothing in the cir- 
umstances of the times which required patience,—which called 
the exercise of constancy and resolution? Or will it be pre 
tended, that these exhortations (which, let it be observed, come not 
from one author, but from many) were put in, merely to induce a 
belief in after-ages, that the Christians were exposed to dangers 
which they were not exposed to, or underwent sufferings which 
they did not undergo ? If these books belong to the age to which 
they lay claim, and in which age, whether genuine or spurious, they 
certainly did appear, this supposition cannot be maintained for a 
moment; because I think it impossible to believe, that passages 
which must be deemed not only unintelligible, but false, by the per¬ 
sons into whose hands the books upon their publication were t« 
come, should nevertheless be inserted, for the purpose of producing 
an effect upon remote generations. In forgeries which do not ap 
pear till many ages after that to which they pretend to belong, it is 
possible that some contrivance of that sort may take place; but in 
no others can it be attempted. 


CHAP. IV. 

Direct Evidence of the Sufferings of the First Propagators of Chris¬ 
tianity from the Scriptures and other ancient Christian writings. 

The account of the treatment of the religion, and of the exer¬ 
tions of its first preachers, as stated in our Scriptures (not in a pro¬ 
cessed history of persecutions, or in the connected manner in which 
am about to recite it, but dispersedly and occasionally in the course 
of a mixed general history, which circumstance alone negatives the 
supposition of any fraudulent design), is the following: ‘That the 
Founder of Christianity, from the commencement of his ministry to 
the time of his violent death, employed himself wholly in publish 


♦ 2 Thess. i. 4, 5. 


t Rom. V. 3,4. 


t 1 Pet. iv. 12, 13. 19. 



35 


Evidences of Christianity. 

injT the institution in Judea and Galilee; that in order to assist him 
in this purpose, he made choice out of the number of his followers, 
in twelve persons who might accompany him as he travelled from 
place to place; that except a short absence upon a journey in which 
he sent them, two by two, to announce his mission, and one, of a 
few days, when they went before him to Jerusalem, these persons 
were statedly and constantly attending upon him; that they were 
•with him at Jerusalem when he was apprehended and put to death ; 
and that they were commissioned by him, when his own ministry 
was concluded, to publish his gospel, and collect disciples to it from 
all countries of the world.’ The account then proceeds to state, 
‘ that a few days after his departure, these persons, with some of his 
relations, and some who had regularly frequented their society, as¬ 
sembled at Jerusalem; that considering the office of preaching the 
religion as now devolved upon them, and one of their number 
having deserted the cause, and, repenting of his perfidy, having de¬ 
stroyed himself, they proceeded to elect another into his place, and 
that they were careful to make their election out of the number of 
those who had accompanied their Master from the first to the last, 
in order as they alleged that he might be a witness, together with 
themselves, of the principal facts which they were alwut to pro¬ 
duce and relate concerning him that they began their work at 
Jerusalem by publicly asserting that this Jesus, whom the rulers 
and inhabitants of that place had so lately crucified, was, in truth, 
the person in whom all their prophecies and long expectations ter¬ 
minated ; that he had been sent amongst them by God, and that he 
was appointed by God the future judge of the human species; that 
all who were solicitous to secure to themselves happiness after 
death, ought to receive him as such, and to make profession of their 
belief, by being baptized in his name.’t The history goes on to re¬ 
late, ‘that considerable numbers accepted this proposal, and that 
they who did so, formed amongst themselves a strict union and 
socxety,t that the attention of the Jewish government being soon 
drawn upon them, two of the principal persons of the twelve, and 
who also had lived most intimately and constantly with the Founder 
of the religion, were seized as they were discoursing to tlie people 
in the temple; that after being kept all night in prison, they were 
brought the next day before an assembly composed of the chief per¬ 
sons of the Jewish magistracy and priesthood; that this assembly, 
after some consultation, found nothing at that time better to be done 
towards suppressing the growth of the sect, than to threaten their 
prisoners with punishment if they persisted; that these men, after 
expressing in decent but firm language, the obligation under which 
they considered themselves to be, to declare what they knew, “ to 
speak the things which they had seen and heard,” returned from 
the council, and reported vvhat had passed to their companions; 
that this report, whilst it apprized them of the danger of their situa¬ 
tion and undertaking, had no other effect upon their conduct than to 


* Acts i. 21, 22. 


t Acts xi. 


J Acts iv. 32. 



36 Paley^s View of the 

produce in them a general resolution to persevere, and an earnest 
prayer to God to furnish them Avith assistance, and to inspire them 
with fortitude proportioned to the increasing exigency of the ser¬ 
vice.’* A very short time after this, we read, ‘ that all the twelve 
apostles were seized and cast in prison ;t that being brought a 
second time before the Jewish Sanhedrim, they were upbraided 
with their disobedience to the injunction which had been laid upon 
them, and beaten for their contumacy; that, being charged once 
more to desist, they were suffered to depart; that however they 
neither quitted Jerusalem, nor ceased from preaching, both daily in 
the temple, and from house to house and that the twelve con¬ 
sidered themselves as so entirely and exclusively devoted to this 
office, that they now transferred what may be called the temporal 
affairs of the society to other hands.’5 

Hitherto the preachers of the new religion seem to have had the 
common people on their side; w'hich is assigned as the reason why 
the Jewish rulers did not, at this time, think it prudent to proceed 
to greater extremities. It was not long however, before the enemies 
of the institution found means to represent it to the people as tend¬ 
ing to subvert their law, degrade their lawgiver, and dishonor their 
temple.y And these insinuations were dispersed with so much suc¬ 
cess, as to induce the people to join with their superiors in the 
stoning of a very active member of the new community. 

The death of this man was the signal of a general persecution, 
the activity of which may be judged of from one anecdote of the 
time: ‘ As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering into 
every house, and haling men and women, committed them to prison.’IT 
This persecution raged at Jerusalem with so much fury as to drive 
most of the new converts out of the place, except the twelve apos- 


* Acts iv. t Acts v. 18. | Acts v. 42. 

§ I do not know that it ever has been insinuated, that the Christian 
mission, in the hands of the apostles, was a scheme for making a fortune, 
or for getting money But it may nevertheless be fit to remark upon this 
passage of their history, how perfectly free they appear to have l)een from 
any pecuniary or interested views whatever. The most tempting oppor¬ 
tunity which occurred, of making a gain of their converts, was by the 
custody and management of the public funds, when some of the richer 
members, intending to contribute their fortunes to the common support 
of the society, sold their possessions, and laid down the prices at the 
apostles’ feet. Yet, so insensible, or undesirous, were they of the advan¬ 
tage which that confidence afforded, that we find they very soon disposed 
of the trust, by putting it into the hands, not of nominees of their own, 
but of stewards formally elected for the purpose by the society at large. 

We may add also, that this excess of generosity, which cast private 
property into the public stock, was so far from being required by the 
apostles, or imposed as a law of Christianity, that Peter reminds Ananias 
that he had been guilty, in his behavior, of an officious and voluntary 
prevarication; ‘for whilst,’ says he, ‘thy estate remained unsold, was it 
not thine own ? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power Y 
H Acts vi. 12. IT Acts viii. 3. 



Evidences of Christianity. 37 

ties'* The converts, thus ‘scattered abroad,’ preached the religion 
wherever they came; and their preaching was, in effect, the preach¬ 
ing of the twelve; for it was so far carried on in concert and corre¬ 
spondence with (hem, that when they heard of the success of their 
emissaries in a particular country, they sent two of their number to 
the place, to complete and confirm the mission. 

An event now took place, of great importance in the future his¬ 
tory of the religion. The persecutiont which had begun at Jerusa¬ 
lem, followed the Christians to other cities, in which the authority 
of the Jewish Sanhedrim over those of their own nation wrs 
allowed to be exercised. A young man, who had signalized himself 
by his hostility to the profession, and had procurW a commission 
from the council at Jerusalem to seize any converted Jews whom 
he might find at Damascus, suddenly became a proselyte to the reli¬ 
gion which he was going about to extirpate. The new convert not 
only shared, on this extraordinary change, the fate of his com 
panions, but brought upon himself a double measure of enmity from 
the party which he had left. The Jews at Damascus, on his return 
to that city, watched the gates night and day with so much dili¬ 
gence, that he escaped from their hands only by being let down in 
a basket by the wall. Nor did he find himself in greater safety at 
Jerusalem, whither he immediately repaired. Attempts were there 
also soon set on foot to destroy him; from the danger of which he 
was preserved by being sent away to Cilicia, his native country. 

For some reason not mentioned, perhaps not known, but probably 
connected with the civil history of the Jews, or with some danger^ 
which engrossed the public attention, an intermission about this 
time took place in the sufferings of the Christians. This happened, 
at the most, only seven or eight, perhaps only three or four, years 
after Christ’s death. Within w'hich period, and notwithstanding 
that the late persecution occupied part of it, churches, or societies, , 
of believers, had been formed in all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria; 
for we read that the churches in these countries ‘ had now rest, and 
were edified, and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the com¬ 
fort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.’$ The original preachers 
of the religion did not remit their labors or activity during this sea¬ 
son of quietness, for we find one, and he a very principal perscn 
among them, passing throughout all quarters. We find also thos 


♦ Acts viii 1, ‘And they were all scattered abroad but the term ‘all’ 
is not, I think, to be taken strictly as denoting more than the generality ; 
in like manner as in Acts ix. 3o, ‘And all that dwelt in Lydia and Saron 
saw him, and turned to the Lord.’ 

t Acts ix. 

t Dr. Lardner (in which he is followed also by Dr. Benson) ascribes 
this cessation of the persecution of the Christians to the attempt of Cali- 
gula to set up his own statue in the temple of Jerusalem, and to the con¬ 
sternation thereby excited in the minds of the Jewish people; which 
consternation for a season suspended every other contest. 

§ Acts ix. 31. 


D 



38 Paley's View of the 

who had been before expelled from Jerusalem by the persecution 
which raged there, travelling as far as Phmnice, Cyprus, and An¬ 
tioch;* and lastly, we find Jerusalem again in the centre of the 
mission, the place whither the preachers returned from their several 
excursions, where they reported the conduct and effocts of their 
ministry, where questions of public concern were canvassed and 
settled, w'hence directions were sought, and teachers sent forth. 

The time of this tranquillity did not, however, continue long. 
Herod Agrippa, who had lately acceded to the government of 
Judea, ‘ stretched forth his hand to vex certain of the church.’t He 
began his cruelty by beheading one of the twelve original apostles, 
a kinsman and constant companion of the Founder of the religion. 
Perceiving that this execution gratified the Jews, he proceeded to 
seize, in order to put to death, another of the number,—and him, 
ike the former, associated with Christ during his life, and eminently 
active in the service since his death. This man was, however, deliv¬ 
ered from prison, as the account states,f miraculously, and made his 
escape from Jerusalem. 

These things are related, not in the general terms under which, 
m giving the outlines of the history, we have here mentioned them, 
but with the utmost particularity of names, persons, places, and cir¬ 
cumstances ; and, what is deserving of notice, without the smallest 
discoverable propensity in the historian to magnify the fortitude or 
exaggerate the sufferings of his party. When they fled for their 
lives, he tells us. When the churches had rest, he remarks it 
When the people took their part, he does not leave it without no¬ 
tice. When the apostles were carried a second time before the 
Sanhedrim, he is careful to observe that they were brought without 
violence. When milder counsels were suggested, he gives the 
author of the advice, and the speech which contained it. When, 
in consequence of this advice, the rulers contented themselves 
with threatening the apostles, and commanding them to be beaten 
with stripes, without urging at that time the persecution farther, the 
historian candidly and distinctly records their forbearance. When, 
therefore, in other instances, he states heavier persecutions, or ac¬ 
tual martyrdoms, it is reasonable to believe that he states them be¬ 
cause they were true, and not from any wish to aggravate, in his 
account, the sufferings which Christians sustained, or to extol, more 
than it deserved, their patience under them. 

Our history now pursues a narrower path. Leaving the rest of 
the apostles, and the original associates of Christ, engaged in the 
propagation of the new faith (and w'ho there is not the least reason 
to believe abated in their diligence or courage), the narrative pro¬ 
ceeds with the separate memoirs of that eminent teacher, whose 
extraordinary and sudden conversion to the religion, and corre¬ 
sponding change of conduct, had before been circumstantially de¬ 
scribed. This person, in conjunction with another, who appeared 
among the earlier members of the society at Jerusalem, and amongst 


* Acts xi. 19. 


t Acts xii. 1. 


J Acts xii. 3—17 



Evidences of Christianity. 39 

the immediate adherents* of the twelve apostles, set out from An¬ 
tioch upon the express business of carrying the new religion through 
the various provinces of the Lesser Asia.t During this expedition, 
we find, that in almost every place to which they came, their per¬ 
sons were insulted, and their lives endangered. After being ex¬ 
pelled from Antioch in Pisidia, they repaired to Iconium.J At Ico- 
nium, an attempt was made to stone them; at Lystra, whither they 
fled from Iconium, one of them actually was stoned and drawn of 
out of the city for dead.H These two men, though not themselves 
original apostles, were acting in connexion and conjunction with 
the original apostles ; for after the completion of their journey, be¬ 
ing sent on a particular commission to Jerusalem, they there related 
to the apostles$ and elders the events and success of their ministry, 
and were, in return, recommended by them to the churches, ‘ as 
men who had hazarded their lives in the cause.’ 

The treatment which they had experienced in the first progress, 
did not deter them from preparing for a second. Upon a dispute, 
however, arising between them, but not connected with the com¬ 
mon subject of their labors, they acted as wise and sincere men 
would act; they did not retire in disgust from the service in which 
they were engaged, but, each devoting his endeavors to the ad¬ 
vancement of the religion, they parted from one another, and set 
forwards upon separate routes. The history goes along with one of 
them; and the second enterprise to him was attended with the 
same dangers and persecutions as both had met with in the first. 
The apostle’s travels hitherto had been confined to Asia. He now 
crosses, for the first time, the AEgean Sea, and carries with him, 
amongst others, the person whose accounts supply the information 
we are stating.lF The first place in Greece at which he appears to 
have stopped, was Philippi in Macedonia. Here himself and one 
of his companions were cruelly whipped, cast into prison, and kept 
there under the most rigorous custody, being thrust, whilst yet 
smarting with their wounds, into the inner dungeon, and their feet 
made fast in the stocks.* § ** Notwithstanding this unequivocal speci¬ 
men of the usage which they had to look for in that country, they 
went forward in the execution of their errand. After passing 
through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica; in 
which city, the house in which they lodged was assailed by a party 
of their enemies, in order to bring them out to the populace. And 
when, fortunately for their preservation, they were not found at 
home, the master of the house was dragged oefore the magistrate 
for admitting them within his doors.tt Their reception at the next 
city was something better: but neither had they continued long be¬ 
fore their turbulent adversaries, the Jews, excited against them 
such commotions amongst the inhabitants, as obliged the apostle to 
make his escape by a private journey to Athens.^ The extremity 


* Acts iv. 36. f Actsxiii. 2. t Actsxiii.51. 

§ Acts xiv. 19. 11 Acts xv. 12—26. TT Acts xvi. 11. 

** Acts xvi. 23,24. 3a ft Acts xvii. 1—5. Xt Acts xvii. 13. 



40 Paley's View of the 

of the progress was Corinth. His abode in the city, for some time, 
seems to have been without molestation. At length, however, the 
Jews found means to stir up an insurrection against him, and to 
bring him before the tribunal of the Roman president.* It was to 
the contempt which that magistrate entertained for the Jews and 
their controversies, of which he accounted Christianity to be one, 
that our apostle owed his deliverance.t 
This indefatigable teacher, after leaving Corinth, returned by 
Ephesus into Syria; and again visited Jerussilem, and the society 
of Christians in that city, which, as hath been repeatedly observed, 
still continued the centre of the mission.^ It suited not, however, 
with the activity of his zeal to remain long at Jerusalem. We 
find him going thence to Antioch, and, after some stay there, travers¬ 
ing once more the northern provinces of Asia Minor.§ This progress 
ended at Ephesus; in which city, the apostle continued in the daily 
exercise of his ministiy two years, and until his success, at length, 
excited the apprehensions of those who were interested in the sup¬ 
port of the national worship. Their clamor produced a tumult, in 
which he had nearly lost his life.H Undismayed, however, by the 
dangers to which he saw himself exposed, he was driven from 
Ephesus only to renew his labors in Greece. After passing over 
Macedonia, he then proceeded to his former station at Corinth.lT 
When he had formed his design of returning by a direct course 
fW)m Corinth into Syria, he was compelled, by a conspiracy of the 
Jews, who were prepared to intercept him on his way, to trace back 
his steps through Macedonia to Philippi, and thence to take ship¬ 
ping into Asia. Along the coast of Asia, he pursued his voyage 
with all the expedition he could command, in order to reach Jeru¬ 
salem against the feast of Pentecost.** His reception at Jerusalem 
was of a piece with the usage he had experienced from the Jews in 
other places. He had been only a few days in that city, when the 
populace, instigated by some of his old opponents in Asia, who 
attended this feast, seized him in the temple, forced him out of it, 
and were ready immediately to have destroyed him, had not the 
sudden presence of the Roman guard rescued him out of their 
hands.tt The officer, however, who had thus seasonably interposed, 
acted from his care of the public peace, with the preservation of 
which he was charged, and not from any favor to the apostle, or 
indeed any disposition to exercise either justice or humanity towards 
him; for he had no sooner secured his person in the fortress, than 
he was proceeding to examine him by torture.tt 
From this time to the conclusion of the history, the apostle remains 
in public custody of the Roman government. After escaping assas¬ 
sination by a fortunate discovery of the plot, and delivering himself 
from the influence of his enemies by an appeal to the audience of 


* Acts xviii. 12. 
§ Acts xviii. 23. 
** Acts XX. 16. 


t Acts xviii. 15. 

II Acts xix. 1. 9, 10. 
tt Acts xxi. 27—33. 


J Acts xviii. 22. 
IT Acts XX. 1, 2. 
U Acts xxii. 24. 



Evidences of Christianity. 41 

the emperor,* he was sent, but not till he had suffered two years’ 
imprisonment, to Rome.t He reached Italy, after a tedious voyage, 
and after encountering in his passage the perils of a desperate ship¬ 
wreck.!: But although still a prisoner, and his fate still depending, 
neither the various and long-continued sufferings which he had 
undergone, nor the danger of his present situation, deterred him 
from persisting in preaching the religion; for the historian closes 
the account by telling us, that, for two years, he received all that 
came unto him in his own hired house, where he was permitted to 
dwell with a soldier that guarded him, ‘preaching the kingdom of 
God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ 
with all confidence.’ 

Now the historian, from whom we have drawn this account, in 
the part of his narrative which relates to St. Paul, is supported by 
the strongest corroborating testimony that a history can receive. 
VVe are in possession of letters written by St. Paul himself upon the 
subject of his ministry, and either written during the period which 
the history comprises, or, if w’ritten afterward, reciting and referring 
to the transactions of that period. These letters, without borrowing 
from the history, or the history from them, unintentionally confirm 
the account which the history delivers, in a great variety of partic¬ 
ulars. What belongs to our present purpose is the description ex¬ 
hibited of the apostle’s sufferings: and the representation, given in 
the history, of the dangers and distresses which he underwent, not 
only agrees, in general, with the language which he himself uses 
whenever he speaks of his life or ministry, but is also, in many 
instances, attested by a specific correspondency of time, place, and 
order of events. If the historian put down in his narrative, that at 
Philippi the apostle ‘ W'as beaten with many stripes, cast into prison, 
and there treated with rigor and indignity w'e find him, in a let¬ 
ter to a neighboring church,ll reminding his converts, that ‘ after he 
had suffered before, and was shamefully entreated at Philippi, he 
was bold, nevertheless, to speak unto them (to whose city he next 
came) the gospel of God.’ If the history relate,!! that at Thessalo- 
nica, the house in which the apostle was lodged, when he first came 
to that place, was assaulted by the populace, and the master of it 
dragged before the magistrate for admitting such a guest within his 
doors; the apostle, in his letter to the Christians of Thessalonica, 
calls to their remembrance ‘ how they had received the gospel in 
much affliction.’* § ** If the history deliver an account of an insurrec¬ 
tion at Ephesus, which had nearly cost the apostle his life; we have 
the apostle himself, in a letter written a short time after his departure 
from that city, describing his despair, and returning thanks for his 
deliverance.Tt If the history inform us, that the apostle was expelled 
from Antioch in Pisidia, attempted to be stoned at Iconium, and 


* Acts XXV. 9. 11. f Acts xxiv. 27. J Acts xxvii. 

§ Acts xvi. 23,24. |( 1 Thess. ii. 2. If Acts xvii. 5. 

** 1 Thess. i. 6. ft Acts xix. 2 Cor. i. 8—10. 


D2 



42 Paley^s View of the 

actually stoned at Lystra; there is preserved a letter from him to a 
favorite convert, whom, as the same history tells us, he first met 
with in these parts; in which letter he appeals to that disciple’s 
knowledge ‘of the persecutions which befell him at Antioch, at Ico- 
nium, at Lystra.’* If the history make the apostle, in his speech to 
the Ephesian elders, remind them, as one proof of the disinterested¬ 
ness of his views, that, to their knowledge, he had supplied his own 
and the necessities of his companions by personal labor ;t we find 
the same apostle, in a letter written during his residence at Ephesus, 
asserting of himself, ‘ that even to that hour he labored, working 
wdth his own hands.’^ 

These coincidences, together with many relative to other parts of 
the apostle’s history, and all drawn from independent sources, not 
only confirm the truth of the account, in the particular points as to 
which they are observed, but add much to the credit of the narra¬ 
tive in all its parts: and support the author’s profession of being a 
contemporary of the person whose history he wTites, and throughout 
a material portion of his narrative, a companion. 

What the epistles of the apostles declare of the suffering state of 
Christianity, the writings which remain of their companions and 
immediate followers expressly confirm. 

Clement, who is honorably mentioned by Saint Paul in his Epistle 
to the Philippians,^ hath left us his attestation to this point, in the 
following words: ‘ Let us take (says he) the examples of our own 
age. Through zeal and envy, the most faithful and righteous pillars 
of the church have been persecuted even to the most grievous 
deaths. Let us set before our eyes the holy apostles. Peter, by un¬ 
just envy, underwent, not one or two, but many sufferings; till at 
last, being martyred, he went to the place of glory that was due 
unto him. For the same cause did Paul, in like manner, receive 
the reward of his patience. Seven times he w'as in bonds; he w'as 
whipped, was stoned; he preached both in the East and in the West, 
leaving behind him the glorious report of his faith; and so havirjg 
taught the whole world righteousness, and for that end travelled 
even unto the utmost bounds of the West, he at last suffered mar¬ 
tyrdom by the command of the governors, and departed out of the 
world, and went unto his holy place, being become a most eminent 
pattern of patience unto all ages. To these holy apostles were 
joined a very great number of others, who, having through envy 
undergone, in like manner, many pains and torments, have left a 
glorious example to us. For this, not only men, but women, have 
been persecuted; and, having suffered very grievous and cruel 
punishments, have finished the course of their faith with firmness.’l| 

Flerma.s, saluted by Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, in a 
piece very little connected with historical recitals, thus speaks* 


* Acts xiii. 50. xiv. 5.19. 2 Tim. iii. 10,11. 

1 1 Cor.iv.ll, 12. 

II Clsm. ad Cor. c. v. vi. Adp. Wake’s Trans. 


t Acts XX. 34. 

§ Philipp, iv. 3. 



Evidences of Christianity, 


43 


Such as have believed and suffered d^ath for the name of Christ, 
and have endured with a ready mind, and have given up their lives 
With all their hearts.’* 

Polycarp, the disciple of John (though all that remains of his 
works be a very short epistle,) has not left this subject unnoticed. 
‘ 1 exhort (says he) all of you, that ye obey the word of righteous¬ 
ness, and exercise all patience, which ye have seen set forth before 
your eyes, not only in the blessed Ignatius, and Lorimus, and Rufus, 
but in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself and ike rest of 
the apostles; being confident in this, that all these have not run in 
vain; but in faith and righteousness; and are gone to the place that 
was due to them from the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For 
they loved not this present world, but Him who died, and was raised 
again by God for us.t 

Ignatius, the contemporary of Polycarp, recognizes the same 
topic, briefly indeed, but positively and precisely. ‘For this cause 
(t\ e. having felt and handled Christ’s body after his resurrection, 
and being convinced, as Ignatius expresses it, both by his flesh and 
spirit), they (i. e. Peter, and those who were present with Peter at 
Christ’s appearance) despised death, and were found to be above it.’t 

Would the reader know what a persecution in these days was, 
I w'ould refer him to a circular letter, written by the church of 
Smyrna soon after the death of Polycarp, who, it will be remem¬ 
bered, had lived with Saint John; and which letter is entitled a re¬ 
lation of that bishop’s martyrdom. ‘ The sufferings (say they) of all 
the other martyrs, were blessed and generous, which they under¬ 
went according to the will of God. For so it becomes us, who are 
more religious than others, to ascribe the power and ordering of all 
things unto him. And indeed who can choose but admire the 
greatness of their minds, and that admirable patience and love of 
their Master, which then appeared in them ? Who, when they were 
so flayed with whipping, that the frame and structure of their bodies 
were laid open to their very inward veins and arteries, nevertheless 
endured it. In like manner, those who were condemned to the 
beasts, and kept a long time in prison, underwent many cruel tor¬ 
ments, being forced to lie upon sharp spikes laid under their bodies, 
and tormented with divers other sorts of punishments; that so, if it 
were possible, the tyrant, Iw the length of their sufferings, might 
.have brought them to deny Christ.’§ 


CHAP. V. 


Observations on the Preceding Evidence. 


On the history, of which the last chapter contains an abstract, 
there are a few observations which it may be proper to make, by 
way of applying its testimony to the particular propositions for 
which we contend. 


* Shepherd of Hernias, c xxviii. 
J 19 Ep. Smyr. c. iii. 


t Pol. ad Phil. c. ix. 

§ Rel. Mor. Pol. c ii. 



44 Paley's View of the 

I. Although our Scripture history leaves the general account of 
the apostles in an early part of the narrative, and proceeds with the 
separate account of one particular apostle, yet the information 
which it delivers so far extends to tlie rest, as it shows the nature of 
the service. When we see one apostle suffering persecution in the 
discharge of his commission, we shall not believe, without evidence, 
that the same office could, at the same time, be attended with ease 
and safety to others. And this fair and reasonable inference is con¬ 
firmed by the direct attestation of the letters, to which we have so 
often referred. The writer of these letters not only alludes, in 
numerous passages, to his own sufferings, but speaks of the rest of 
the apostles as enduring like sufferings with himself. ‘ I think that 
God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were, appointed to death; 
for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to 
men;—even unto this present hour, we both hunger and thirst, and 
are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place; 
and labor, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; 
being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat: we are 
made as the filth of the world, and as the offscouring of all things 
unto this day.’* Add to which, that in the short account that is given 
of the othe r apostles in the former part of the history, and within 
the short period which that account comprises, we find, first, two of 
them seized, imprisoned, brought before the Sanhedrim, and threat¬ 
ened with farther punishment ;t then, the whole number imprisoned 
and beaten 4 soon afterward, one of their adherents stoned to death, 
and so hot a persecution raised against the sect, as to drive most of 
them out of the place; a short time only succeeding, before one of 
the twelve was beheaded, and another sentenced to the same fate, 
and all this passing in the single city of Jerusalem, and within ten 
years after the Founder’s death, and the commencement of the in¬ 
stitution. 

II. We take no credit at present for the miraculous part of the 
narrative, nor do we insist upon the correctness of single passages 
of it. If the whole story be not a novel, a romance; the whole ac¬ 
tion a dream; if Peter, and James, and Paul, and the rest of the 
apostles mentioned in the account, be not all imaginary persons; if 
their letters be not all forgeries, and, what is more, forgeries ol 
names and characters which never existed; then is their evidence 
in our hands sufficient to support the only fact we contend for (and 
which, I repeat again, is, in itself, highly probable), that the original 
followers of Jesus Christ exerted great endeavors to propagate his 
religion, and underwent great labors, dangers, and sufferings, in 
consequence of their undertaking. 

III. The general reality of the apostolic history is strongly con¬ 
firmed by the consideration, that it, in truth, does no more than as¬ 
sign adequate causes for effects which certainly were produced, and 
describe consequences naturally resulting from situations which 
certainly existed. The effects were certainly these, of which this 


♦ 1 Cor. iv. 9, &c. 


t Acts iv. 3. 21. 


J Acts v. 18. 40. 



Evidences of Christianity. 45 

history sets forth the cause, and origin, and progress. It is acknow¬ 
ledged on all hands, because it is recorded by other testimony than 
that of the Christians themselves, that the religion began to prevail 
at that time, and in that country. It is very difficult to conceive 
how it could begin, or prevail at all, without the exertions of the 
Founder and his followers in propagating the new persuasion. The 
history now in our hands describes these exertions, the persons em¬ 
ployed, the means and endeavors made use of, and the labors under¬ 
taken in the prosecution of this purpose. Again, the treatment 
which the history represents the first propagators of the religion to 
have experienced, was no other than what naturally resulted from 
the situation in which they were confessedly placed. It is admitted 
that the religion was adverse, in a great degree, to the reigning 
opinions, and to the hopes and wishes of the nation to which it was 
first introduced; and that it overthrew, so far as it was received, 
the established theology and worship of every other country. We 
cannot feel much reluctance in believing, that, when the mes¬ 
sengers of such a system went about not only publishing their 
opinions, but collecting proselytes, and forming regular societies of 
proselytes, they should meet with opposition in their attempts, or 
that this opposition should sometimes proceed to fatal extremities. 
Our history details examples of this opposition, and of the sufferings 
and dangers which the emissaries of the religion underwent, per¬ 
fectly agreeable to what might reasonably be expected from the 
nature of their undertaking, compared with the character of the age 
and country in which it was carried on. 

IV. The records before us supply evidence of what formed 
another member of our general proposition, and what, as hath 
already been observed, is highly probable, and almost a necessary 
consequence of their new profession; viz. that, together with ac¬ 
tivity and courage in propagating the religion, the primitive follow¬ 
ers of Jesus assumed, upon their conversion, a new and peculiar 
course of private life. Immediately after their Master was with¬ 
drawn from them, we hear of their ‘continuing with one accord in 
prayer and supplication of their ‘ continuing daily with one accord 
in the temple ;’t of ‘ many being gathered together praying.’^: We 
know what strict injunctions were laid upon the converts by their 
teachers. Wherever they came, the first word of their preaching 
was, ‘Repent!’ We know that these injunctions obliged them to re¬ 
frain from many species of licentiousness, which were not, at that 
time, reputed criminal. We know the rules of purity, and the 
maxims of benevolence, which Christians read in their books; con¬ 
cerning which rules, it is enough to observe, that, if they were, I 
will not say completely obeyed, but in any degree regarded, they 
would produce a system of conduct, and, what is more difficult te 
preserve, a disposition of mind, and a regulation of affections, dif 
ferent from ariy thing to which they had hitherto been accustomed 
and different from what they would see in others. The change ana 


* Acts i. 14. 


t Acts ii. 46. 


J Acts xii. 12. 




46 


Paley^s View of the 

distinction of manners, which resulted from their new character, is 
perpetualljr referred to in the letters of their teachers. ‘ And you 
hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein 
in times past ye walked, according to the course of this world, ac¬ 
cording to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now 
worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also we 
had our conversation in times past, in the lusts of our flesh, fulfil¬ 
ling the desires of the flesh, and of the mind, and were by nature 
the children of wrath, even as others.’*—‘ For the time past of our 
life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when 
we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, re veilings, ban- 
quetings, and abominable idolatries; wherein they think it strange 
that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot.’ Saint Paul, in 
his first letter to the Corinthians, after enumerating, as his manner 
was, a catalogue of vicious characters, adds, ‘ Such were some of 
you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified.’t In like manner, 
and alluding to the same change of practices and sentiments, he 
asks the Roman Christians, ‘ what fruit they had in those things, 
whereof they are now ashamed !’§ The phrases which the same 
writer employs to describe the moral condition of Christians, com¬ 
pared with their condition before they became Christians, such as 
‘newness of life,’ being ‘freed from sin,’ being ‘dead to sin;’ ‘the 
destruction of the body of sin, that, ybr the future, they should not 
serve sin ;’ ‘children of light, and of the day,’ as opposed to ‘ chil¬ 
dren of darkness and of the night;’ ‘ not sleeping as others;’ imply, 
at least, a new system of obligation, and, probably, a new series of 
conduct, commencing with their conversion. 

The testimony which Pliny bears to the behavior of the new 
sect in his time, and which testimony comes not more than fifty 
years after that of Saint Paul, is very applicable to the subject un¬ 
der consideration. The character which this writer gives of the 
Christians of that age, and which was drawn from a pretty accurate 
inquiry, because he considered their moral principles as the point 
in which the magistrate was interested, is as follows:—Pie tells the 
emperor, ‘ that some of those who had relinquished the society, or 
who, to save themselves, pretended that they had relinquished it, 
affirmed that they were wont to meet together, on a stated day, be¬ 
fore it was light, and sang among themselves alternately a hymn to 
Christ as a God; and to bind themselves by an oath, not to the 
commission of any wickedness, but that they would not be guilty 
of theft, or robbery, or adultery; that they would never falsify then- 
word, or deny a pledge committed to them, when called upon to 
return it.’ This proves that a morality, more pure and strict than 
was ordinary, prevailed at that time in Christian societies. And to 
me it appears, that we are authorized to carry this testimony back 
to the age of the apostles; because it is not probable that the imrae- 


* Eph. ii. 1—3. See also Tit. iii. 3. 
X 1 Cot. vi. 11. 


t 1 Pet. iv. 3, 4. 
§ Rom. vi. 21. 




Evidences of Christianity. 47 

diate hearers and disciples of Christ were more relaxed than their 
successors in Pliny’s time, or the missionaries of the religion than 
those whom they taught. 


CHAP. VI. 

That the Story, for which the first Propagators of Christianity suf 
fered, vxls miraculous. 

When we consider, first, the prevalency of the religion at this 
hour; secondly, the only credible account which can be given of 
Its origin, viz. the activity of the Founder and his associates; thirdly, 
the opposition which that activity must naturally have excited; 
fourthly, the fate of the Founder of the religion, attested by heathen 
writers as well as our own; fifthly, the testimony of the same writers 
to the sufferings of Christians, either contemporary with, or imme¬ 
diately succeeding, the original settlers of the institution; sixthly, 
predictions of the sufferings of his followers ascribed to the Founder 
of the religion, which ascription alone proves, either that such pre¬ 
dictions were delivered and fulfilled, or that the writers of Christ’s 
life were induced by the event to attribute such predictions to him ; 
seventhly, letters now in our possession, written by some of the 
principal agents in the transaction, referring expressly to extreme 
labors, dangers, and su^rings, sustained by themselves and their 
companions; lastly, a history purporting to be written by a fellow- 
traveller of one of the new teachers, and, by its unsophisticated cor- 
resjiondency with letters of that person still extant, proving itself to 
be written by some one well acquainted with the subject of the 
narrative, which history contains accounts of travels, persecutions, 
and martyrdoms, answering to what the former reasons led us to 
expect: when we lay together these considerations, which, taken 
separately, are, I think, correctly, such as I have stated them in the 
preceding chapters, there cannot much doubt remain upon our 
minds, but that a number of persons at that time appeared in the 
world, publicly advancing an extraordinary story, and, for the sake 
of propagating the belief of that story, voluntarily incurring great 
personal dangers, traversing seas and kingdoms, exerting great in¬ 
dustry, and sustaining great extremities of ill usage and persecution. 
It is also proved, that the same persons, in consequence of their* 
persuasion, or pretended persuasion, of the truth of what they as¬ 
serted, entered upon a course of life in many respects new and 
singular. 

From the clear and acknowledged parts of the case, I think it to 
1^ likewise in the highest degree probable, that the story, for which 
these persons voluntarily exposed themselves to the fatigues and 
Imrdships which they endured, was a miraculous story; I mean, 
that they pretended to miraculous evidence of some kind or other. 
They had nothing else to stand upon. The designation of the per¬ 
son, that is to say, that Jesus of Nazareth, rather than any other 


48 Paley's View of the 

person, was the Messiah, and as such the subject of their ministry 
could only be founded upon supernatural tokens attributed to him- 
Here were no victories, no conquests, no revolutions, no surprising 
elevation of fortune, no achievements of valor, of strength, or of 
policy, to appeal to; no discoveries in any art or science, no great 
efforts of genius or learning to produce. 

A Galilean peasant was announced to the world as a divine law¬ 
giver. A young man of mean condition, of a private and simple 
life, and who had wrought no deliverance for the Jewish nation, 
was declared to be their Messiah. This, without ascribing to him 
at the same time some proofs of his mission, (and what other but 
supernatural proofs could there be ?) was too absurd a claim to be 
either imagined, or attempted, or credited. In whatever degree, or 
m whatever part, the religion was argumentative, when it came to 
the question, ‘ Is the carpenter’s son of Nazareth the person w'hora 
we are to receive and obey ?’ there was nothing but the miracles 
attributed to him, by which his pretensions could be maintained for 
a moment. Every controversy and every question must presup¬ 
pose these; for, however such controversies, when they did arise, 
might, and naturally would, be discussed upon their own grounds 
of argumentation, without citing the miraculous evidence which 
had been asserted to attend the Founder of the religion (which 
would have been to enter upon another, and a more general ques¬ 
tion), yet we are to bear in mind, that without previously supposing 
the existence, or the pretence of such evidence, there could have 
been no place for the discussion of the argument at all. Thus, for 
example, whether the prophecies, which the Jew's interpreted to 
belong to the Messiah, were, or were not, applicable to the history 
of Jesus of Nazareth, was a natural subject of debate in those 
times; and the debate would proceed, without recurring at every 
turn to his miracles, because it set out with supposing these; inas¬ 
much as without miraculous marks and tokens (real or pretended), 
or without some such great change effected by his means in the 
public condition of the country, as might have satisfied the then re¬ 
ceived interpretation of these prophecies, I do not see how the 
question could ever have been entertained. Apollos, we read, 
‘ mightily convinced the Jews, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus 
was Christ;’* but unless Jesus had exhibited some distinction of 
his person, some proof of supernatural power, the argument from 
the old Scriptures could have had no place. It had nothing to at¬ 
tach upon. A young man calling himself the Son of God, gathering 
a crowd about him, and delivering to them lectures of morality, 
could not have excited so much as a doubt among the Jews, 
whether he was the object in whom a long series of ancient proph¬ 
ecies terminated, from the completion of which they had formed 
such magnificent expectations, and expectations of a nature so op¬ 
posite to w»hat appeared; I mean, no such doubt could exist when 
they had the whole case before them, when they saw him put to 


' A'',Is xviii 




Evidences of Christianity. 49 

death for his officiousness, and when by his death the evidence 
concerning him W'as closed. Again, the effect of the Messiah’s 
coming, supposing Jesus to have been hej upon Jews, upon Gen¬ 
tiles, upon their relation to each other, upon their acceptance with 
God, upon their duties and their expectations; his nature, authority, 
office, and agency; were likely to become subjects of much con¬ 
sideration with the early votaries of the religion, and to occupy 
their attention and writings. 1 should not however expect, that in 
these disquisitions, whether preserved in the form of letters, 
speeches, or set treatises, frequent or very direct mention of his 
miracles would occur. Still, miraculous evidence lay at the bottom 
of the argument. In the primary question, miraculous pretensions, 
and miraculous pretensions alone, were what they had to rely 
upon. 

That the original story was miraculous, is very fairly also inferred 
from the miraculous powers which were laid claim to by the Chris¬ 
tians of succeeding ages. If the accounts of these miracles be true, 
it was a continuation of the same powers; if they be false, it was 
in imitation, I will not say, of what had been wrought, but of what 
had been reported to have been wrought, by those who preceded 
them. That imitation should follow reality, fiction should be grafted 
upon truth; that, if miracles were performed at first, miracles should 
be pretended afterward; agrees so well with the ordinary course- 
of human affairs, that we can have no great difficulty in believing 
it. The contrary supposition is very improbable, namely, that mira- 
cles should be pretended to by the followers of the apostles and first 
emissaries of religion, when none were protended to, either in their 
own persons or that of their Master, by these apostles and emissa¬ 
ries themselves. 


CHAP. VII. 

That it teas in (he main the Story which we have now proved, by indi^ 
reel Considerations. 

It being then once proved, that the- first propagators of the Chris¬ 
tian institution did exert activity, and subject themselves to grea 
dangers and sufferings, in consequence, and for the sake of an extra 
ordinary, and, I think we may say, of a miraculous story of some 
kind or other; the next great question is. Whether the account 
which our Scriptures contain, be that story; that which these men 
delivered, and for which they acted and suffered as they did ? This 
question is, in effect, no other than whether the story which Chris¬ 
tians have now, be the story which Christians had then ? And of 
this the following proofs may be deduced from general considera¬ 
tions prior to any inquiry into the particular reasons and testimonies 
by which the authority of our histories is supported. 

In the first place, there exists no trace or vestige of any other 
storv It is not, like the death of Cyrus the Great, a competition 
between ops^osite accounts, or between the credit of different histo- 

E 


50 Paley's View of the 

rians. There is not a document, or scrap of account, either contem¬ 
porary with the commencement of Christianity, or extant within 
many ages after that commencement, which assigns a history sub¬ 
stantially differing from ours. The remote, brief, and incidental 
notices of the aflhir, which are found in heathen writers, so far as 
they do go, go along with us. They bear testimony to these facts:— 
that the institution originated from Jesus; that the Founder was put 
to death, as a malefactor, at Jerusalem, by the authority of the Ro¬ 
man governor, Pontius Pilate; that the religion nevertheless spread 
in that city, and throughout Judea; and that it was propagated 
thence to distant countries; that the converts were numerous; that 
they suffered great hardships and injuries for their profession; and 
that all this took place in the age of the world which our books 
have assigned. They go on father, to describe the manners of 
Christians, in terms perfectly conformable to the accounts extant in 
our books; that they were wont to assemble on a certain day; that 
they sang hymns to Christ as to a god; that they bound themselves 
by an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from theft and 
adultery, to adhere strictly to their promises, and not to deny 
money deposited in their hands ;* that they worshipped him who 
was crucified in Palestine; that this their first lawgiver had taught 
them that they were all brethren; that they had a great contempt 
for the things of this world, and looked upon them as common ; that 
they flew to one another’s relief; that they cherished strong hopes 
of immortality; that they despised death, and surrendered them¬ 
selves to suflhrings.’t This is the account of writers who viewed 
the subject at a great distance; who w’ere uninformed and unin¬ 
terested about it. It bears the characters of such an account upon 
the face of it, because it describes effects, namely, the appearance 
in the world of a new religion, and the conversion of great multi¬ 
tudes to it, without descending, in the smallest degree, to the detail 
of the transaction upon which it was founded, the interior of the 
institution, the evidence or arguments offered by those who drew 
over others to it. Yet still here is no contradiction of our story; no 


* See Pliny’s Letter.—Bonnet, in his lively way of expressing himself, 
says,—‘ Comparing Pliny’s Letter with the account in the Acts, it seems 
to me that I had not taken up another author, but that I was still read¬ 
ing the historian of that extraordinary society.’ This is strong: but 
there is undoubtedly an affinity, and all the affinity that could be ex¬ 
pected. 

t' It is incredible what expedition they use when any of their friends 
are known to be in trouble. In a word, they spare nothing upon such an 
occasion :—for these miserable men have no doubt they shall be immortal 
and live for ever: therefore they contemn death, and many surrender 
themselves to sufferings. Moreover, their first lawgiver has taught them 
that they are all brethren, when once they have turned atid renounced 
the gods of the Greeks, and worship this Master of theirs who was cru¬ 
cified, and engage to live according to his laws. They have also a sove¬ 
reign contempt for all the things of this world, and look >ipon them as 
common.’—Lucian, de Morte Peregrini, t. i. p. 565. ed. Griev. 



Evidences of Christianity. 51 

other or different story set up against it: but so far a confirmation 
of it, as that, in the general points on which the heathen account 
touches, it agrees with that which we find in our own books. 

The same may be observed of the very few Jewish writers, of 
that and the adjoining period, which have come down to us. What¬ 
ever they omit, or whatever difficulties we may find in explaining 
the omission, they advance no other history of the transaction than 
that which we acknowledge. Josephus, who wrote his Antiquities, 
or History of the Jews, about sixty years after the commencement 
of Christianity, in a passage generally admitted as genuine, makes 
mention of John, under the name of John the Baptist; that he was 
a preacher of virtue; that he baptized his proselytes; that he was 
well received by the people; that he was imprisoned and put to 
death by Herod; and that Herod lived in a criminal cohabitation 
with Herodias his brother’s wife.* In another passage, allow’ed by 
many, although not without considerable question being moved 
about it, we hear of‘James, the brother of him who was called 
Jesus, and of his being put to death.’t In a third passage, extant in 
every copy that remains of Josephus's History, but the authenticity 
of which has nevertheless been long disputed, we have an explicit 
testimony to the substance of our history in these words:—‘ At that 
time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man, for he per¬ 
formed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as 
received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many Jews 
and Gentiles. This was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the insti¬ 
gation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, 
they who before had conceived an affection for him, did not cease 
to adhere to him: for, on the third day, he appeared to them alive 
again; the divine prophets having foretold these and many wonder¬ 
ful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called 
from him, subsist to this time.’J Whatever becomes of the contro¬ 
versy concerning the genuineness of this passage; whether Jose¬ 
phus go the whole length of our history, which, if the passage be 
sincere, he does; or whether he proceed only a very little way with 
us, which, if the passage be rejected, we confess to be the case; 
still what we asserted is true, that he gives no other different his 
to^ of the subject from ours, no other or different account of the 
origin of the institution. And I think also that it may with great 
reason be contended, either that the passage is genuine, or that the 
silence of Josephus was designed. For, although we should lay 
aside the authority of our own books entirely, yet when Tacitus, 
who wrote not twenty, perhaps not ten, years after Josephus, in his 
account of a period in which Josephus was nearly thirty years of 
age, tells us, that a vast multitude of Christians were condemned 
at Rome; that they derived their denomination from Christ, who, in 
the reign of Tiberius, was put to death, as a criminal, by the procu- 


* Antiq. 1. xviii. cap. v. sect. 1,2. 
I Antiq. 1. xviii. cap. iii. sect. 3. 


t Antiq. 1. xx. cap. ix. sect. I 



52 


Paley’s View of the 

rator, Pontius Pilate; that the superstition had spread not only over 
Judea, the source of the evil, but had reached Rome also:—when 
Suetonius, an historian contemporary with Tacitus, relates that, in 
the time of Claudius, the Jews were making disturbances at Rome, 
Christus being their leader; and that, during the reign of Nero, the 
Christians were punished; under both which emperors Josephus 
lived:—when Pliny, who wrote his celebrated epistle not more than 
thirty years after the publication of Josephus’s histoty, found the 
Christians in such numbers in the province of Bithynia, ^ to draw 
from him a complaint, that the contagion had seized cities, towns, 
and villages, and had so seized them as to produce a general deser¬ 
tion of the public rites ; and when, as has already been observed, 
there is no reason for imagining that the Christians were more 
numerous in Bithynia than in marw other parts of the Roman em- 

f iire: it cannot, I should suppose, after this, be believed, that the re- 
igion, and the transaction upon which it was founded, were too ol> 
scure to engage the attention of Josephus, or to obtain a place in 
his history. Perhaps he did not know how to represent the business, 
and disposed of his difficulties by passing it over in silence. Eu^bius 
wrote the life of Constantiney< yet omits entirely the most remarka¬ 
ble circumstance in that life, the death of his son Crispus; undoubt¬ 
edly for the reason here given. The reserve of Josephus upon the 
subject of Christianity appears also in his passing over the banish¬ 
ment of the Jews by Claudius, which Suetonius, we have seen, 
has recorded with an express reference to Christ. This is at least 
as remarkable as his silence aboiit the infants of Bethlehem.* Be, 
however, the fact, or the cause of the omission in Josephus,! what 
it may, no other or different history on the subject has been given 
by him, or is pretended to have been given. 

But farther; the whole series of Christian writers, from the first 
age of the institution down to the present, in their discussions, 
apologies, arguments, and controversies, proceed upon the general 
story which our Scriptures contain, and upon no other. The main 
facts, the principal agents, are alike in all. This argument will ap¬ 
pear to be of great force, when it is known that we are able to trace 
back the series of writers to a contact with the historical books of 


♦ Michaelis has computed, and, as it should seem, fairly enough, that 
probably not more than twenty children perished by this cruel precaution. 
Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament, translated by Marsh, 
vol. 1. c. ii. sect. 11. 

t There is no notice taken of Christianity in the Misna, a collection of 
Jewish traditions compiled about the year 180; although it contains a 
tract ‘De cultu peregrino,’ of strange or idolatrous worship: yet it can¬ 
not be disputed but that Christianity was perfectly well known in the 
world at this time. There is extremely little notice of the subject in the 
Jerusalem Talmud, compiled about the year 300, and not much more in 
the Babylonish Talmud, of the year 500; although both these works are 
of a religious nature, and although, when the first was compiled, Chris¬ 
tianity was on the point of becoming the religion of the state, and, when 
the latter was published, had been so for 200 years 



Evidences of Christianity. 53 

the New Testament, and to the age of the first emissaries of the 
religion, and to deduce it, by an unbroken continuation, from that 
end of the train to the present. 

The remaining letters of the apostles (and what more original 
than t^etr letters can we have?) though written without the re 
motest design of transmitting the history of Christ, or of Christianity, 
to future ages, or even of making it known to their contemporaries, 
incidentally disclose to us the following circumstancesChrist’s 
descent and family; his innocence; the meekness and gentleness 
of his character (a recognition which goes to the whole Gospel his- 
tory),' his exalted nature; his circumcision; his transfiguration; his 
life of opf)osition and suliering; his patience and resignation; the 
appointment of the eucharist, and the manner of it; his agony; his 
confession before Pontius Pilate; his stripes, crucifixion, and burial; 
his resurrection; his appearance after it, first to Peter, then to the 
rest of the apostles; his ascension into heaven, and his designation 
to be the future judge of mankind;—the stated residence of the 
apostles at Jerusalem; the working of miracles by the first preach¬ 
ers of the gospel, who were also the hearers of Christ the suc¬ 
cessful propagation of the religion; the persecution of its followers; 
the miraculous conversion of Paul; miracles wrought by himself, 
and alleged in his controversies with his adversaries, and in letters 
to the persons amongst whom they were wrought; finally, that 
MIRACLES were the signs of an aposile.f 

In an epistle bearing the name of Barnabas, the companion of 
Paul, probably genuine, certainly belonging to that age, we have 
the sufferings of Christ, his choice of apostles and their number, his 
ppsion, the scarlet robe, the vinegar and gall, the mocking and 
piercing, the casting lots for his coat,t his resurrection on the eighth 
(?. e. the first day of the W'eek),$ and the commemorative distinction 
of that day, his manifestation after his resurrection, and, lastly, his 
ascension. We have also his miracles generally but positively re¬ 
ferred to in the following words: ‘ Finally, teaching the people of 


* Heb. ii. .3; ‘How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation, 
which, at the first, began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed 
unto us brj them that heard him, God also bearing them witness, both with 
signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost!’ 
I allege this Epistle without hesitation; for, whatever doubts may have 
been raised about its author, there can be none concerning the age in 
which it was written. No epistle in the collection carries about it more 
indubitable marks of antiquity than this does. It speaks, for instance, 
throughout, of the temple as then standing, and of the worship of the 
temple as then subsisting.—Heb. viii. 4; ‘For, if he were on earth, he 
should not be a priest, seeing there are priests that offer according to the 
law.’—Again. Heb. xiii. 10; ‘We have an altar whereof they have no 
right to eat which serve the tabernacle.’ 

t ‘Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all 
patience, in signs, in wonders, and mighty deeds.’ 2 Cor. xii. 12. 

I Ep. Bar. c. vii. § Ep. Bar. c. vi. 


E2 



54 


Puley's View of the 

Israel, and doing many wonders and signs among them, he preached 
to them, and showed the exceeding great love which he bare to¬ 
wards them.’'*' 

In an epistle of Clement, a hearer of Saint Paul, although w'ritten 
for a purpose remotely connected with the Christian history, we 
have the resurrection of Christ, and the subsequent mission of the 
apostles, recorded in these satisfactoiy terms: ‘The apostles have 
preached to us from our Lord Jesus Christ from God:—for, having 
received their command, and being thoroughly assured hy the resur¬ 
rection of our Lord Jesus Christ, they w'ent abroad, publishing that 
the kingdom of God was at Irand.’t We find noticed also, the 
humility, yet the power of Christ,$ his descent from Abraham, his 
crucifixion. We have Peter and Paul represented as faithful and 
righteous pillars of the church; the numerous sufferings of Peter; 
the bonds, stripes, and stoning of Paul, and, more particularly, his 
extensive and unwearied travels. 

In an epistle of Polycarp, a disciple of Saint John, though only a 
brief hortatory letter, we have the humility, patience, sufferings, re¬ 
surrection, and ascension, of Christ, together with the apostolic 
character of Saint Paul, distinctly recognized.^ Of this same father 
we are also assured by Irenaeus, that he (Irenaeus) had heard him re¬ 
late, ‘ what he had received from eye-witnesses concerning the 
Lord, both concerning his miracles and his doctrine.’!! 

In the remaining works of Ignatius, the contemporary of Poly¬ 
carp, larger than those of Polycarp (yet like those of Polycarp, treat¬ 
ing of subjects in nowise leading to any recital of the Christian his¬ 
tory), the occasional allusions are proportionably more numerous. 
The descent of Christ from David, his mother Mary, his miraculous 
conception, the star at his birth, his baptism by John, the reason as¬ 
signed for it, his appeal to the prophets, the ointment poured on his 
head, his sufferings under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, 
his resurrection, the Lord’s day called and kept in commemoration 
of it, and the eucharist, in both its parts—are unequivocally referred 
to. Upon the resurrection, this writer is even circumstantial. He 
mentions the apostles’ eating and drinking with Christ after he had 
risen, their feeling and their handling him; from which last circum¬ 
stance Ignatius raises this just reflection :—‘ They believed, being 
convinced both by his flesh and spirit; for this cause, they despised 
death, and were found to be above it.’ir 

Quadratus, of the same age with Ignatius, has left us the follow¬ 
ing noble testimony:—‘The works of our Saviour were always con¬ 
spicuous, for they were real; both those that were healed, and 
those that were raised from the dead; who were seen not only 
when they were healed or raised, but for a long time afterward ; 
not only whilst he dwelled on this earth, but also after his depar- 


* Ep. Bar. c. v. f Ep. Clem. Rom. c. xlii. J Ep. Clem. Rom. c. xvi. 
6 Pol. Ep. ad Phil c. v. viii. ii. iii. 

I Ir. ad Flor. ap. Euseb. 1. v. c. 20. Ad Smyr. c. iii. 



Evidences of Christianity. 55 

ture, and for a good while after it, insomuch that some of them have 
reached to our times.’* 

Justin Martyr came little more than thirty years after Quadratus. 
From J ustin’s works, which are still extant, might be collected a 
tolerably complete account of Christ’s life, in all points agreeing 
with that which is delivered in our Scriptures; taken indeed, in a 
great measure, from those Scriptures, but still proving that this ac¬ 
count, and no other, was the account known and extant in that age. 
The miracles in particular, which form the part of Christ’s history 
most material to be traced, stand fully and distinctly recognized in 
the following passage —‘ He healed those who had been blind, and 
deaf, and lame, from their birth; causing, by his word, one to leap, 
another to hear, and a third to see: and by raising the dead, and 
making them to live, he induced, by his works, the men of that age 
to know him.’t 

It is unnecessary to carry these citations lower, because the his¬ 
tory, after this time, occurs in ancient Christian writings as famil¬ 
iarly M it is wont to do in modem sermons;—occurs always the 
same in substance, and always that which our evangelists repre¬ 
sent 

This is not only true of those writings of Christians, which are 
genuine, and of acknowledged authority; but it is, in a great mea¬ 
sure, true of aU their ancient writings which remain; although 
some of these may have been erroneously ascribed to authors to 
whom they did not belong, or may contain false accounts, or may 
appear to be undeserving of credit, or never indeed to have ob¬ 
tained any. Whatever fables they have mixed with the narrative, 
they preserve the material parts, the leading facts, as we have 
iheni; and so far as they do this, although they be evidence of 
nothing else, they are evidence that these points were fixed, were 
received and acknowledged by all Christians in the age in which 
the books were written. At least, it may be asserted, that in the 
places where we were most likely to meet with such things, if such 
things had existed, no relics appear of any story substantially differ¬ 
ent from the present, as the cause or as the pretence of the insti¬ 
tution. 

Now that the original story, the story delivered by the first 
preachers of the institution, should have died away so entirely as 
to have left no record or memorial of its existence, although so 
many records and memorials of the time and transaction remain; 
and that another story should have stepped into its place, and 
gained exclusive possession of the belief of all who professed them¬ 
selves disciples of the institution, is beyond any example of the 
corruption of even oral tradition, and still less consistent with the 
experience of written history: and this improbability, which is very 
great, is rendered still greater by the reflection, that no such change 
as the oblivion of one story, and the substitution of another, took 


* Ap. Euseb. H. E. lib. iv. c. 3. 

J Just. Dial. cum. Tryph. p. 2?8. ed. Thirl. 



56 


Paley's View of the 

place in any future period of the Christian era- Christianity hath 
travelled through dark and turbulent ages; nevertheless, it came 
out of the cloud and the storm, such in substance, as it entered in. 
Many additions were made to the primitive history, and these enti¬ 
tled to different degrees of credit; many doctrinal errors also were 
from time to time grafted into the public creed; but still the origi 
nal story remained, and remained the same. In all its principal 
parts, it has been fixed from the beginning. 

Thirdly: The religious rites and usages that prevailed amongs< 
the early disciples of Christianity were such as belonged to, and 
sprung out of, the narrative in our hands; which accordancy shows 
that it was the narrative upon which these persons acted, and 
which they had received from their teachers. Our account makes 
the Founder of the religion direct that his disciples should be 
baptized. We know that the first Christians were baptized 
Our account makes him direct, that they should hold religious 
assemblies: we find that they did hold religious assemblies. Oui 
accounts make the apostles assemble upon a stated day of the 
wuek: we find, and that from information perfectly independent 
of our accounts, that the Christians of the first century did observe 
stated days of assembling. Our histories record the institution of 
the rite which we call the Lord’s supper, and a command to repeat 
it in perpetual succession: we find amongst the early Christians, the 
celebration of this rite universal. And, indeed, we find, concurring 
in all the above-mentioned observances, Christian societies of many 
different nations and languages, removed from one another by a 
great distance of place, and dissimilitude of situation. It is also ex 
tremely material to remark, that there is no room for insinuating 
that our books were fabricated with a studious accommodation to 
the usages which obtained at the time they v/ere written; that tha 
authors of the books found the usages e«'/iblished, and framed tha 
story to account for their original. The .Sjripture accounts espo- 
cially of the Lord’s supper are too short g/id cursory, not to say too 
obscure, and, in this view, deficient, to a’iovvr a place for any suck 
suspicion.* ^ 

Amongst the proofs of the truth of tljs proposition, viz. that the 
story which we have now is, in subf tioce, the story which the 
Christians had then, or, in other worJs, that the accounts in our 
Gospels are, as to their principal parti at least, the accounts which 
the apostles and original teachers of the religion delivered, one 
arises from observing that it appears by the Gospels themselves, that 
the story was public at the time; that the Christian community 
was already in possession of the su'ostance and principal parts of 
the narrative. The Gospels were not the original cause of the 
Christian history being believed, but were themselves among the 

* The reader, who is conversant in these researches, by comparing 
the short Scripture accounts of the Christian rites above mentioned, with 
the minute and circumstantial directions contained in the pretended 
apostolical constitutions, will see the force of this observation; the dif¬ 
ference between truth and forgery. 




Evidences of Christianity. 57 

consequences of that belief. This is expressly affirmed ^ St. Luke^ 
in his brief, but, as I think, very important and instructive, preface:: 
‘ Forasmuch (says the evangelist) as many have taken in hand to. 
set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely 
believed amongst us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from 
the beginning were eye-witnesses, and ministers of the word ; it seemed 
good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things 
from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent The- 
ophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things 
wherein thou hast been instructed' —This short introduction testifies 
that the substance of the history which the evangelist w’as about to 
write, was already believed oy Christians; that it was believed 
upon the declaration of eye-witnesses and ministers of the word; 
that it formed the account of their religion in which Christians 
■were instructed; that the office which the historian proposed to 
himself, was to trace each particular to its origin, and to fix the 
certainty of many things which the reader had before heard of In 
St. John’s Gospel, the same point appears hence, that there are 
some principal facts to which the historian refers, but which he 
does not relate. A remarkable instance of this kind is the ascen¬ 
sion, which is not mentioned by Saint John in its place, at the con¬ 
clusion of his history, but which is plainly referred to in the follow¬ 
ing words of the sixth chapter •* ‘ Viffiat and if ye shall see the Son 
of man ascend up where he was before?’ And still more positively 
in the words which Christ, according to our evangelist, spoke to 
Manr after his resurrection, ‘ Touch me not, for I am not yet as¬ 
cended to my Father: but go unto brethren, and say unto them, 
I ascend unto my Father and your Father, unto my God and your 
God.’t This can only be accounted for by the supposition that 
Saint John wrote under a sense of the notoriety of Christ’s ascen¬ 
sion, amongst those by whom his book was likely to be read. The 
same account must also be given of Saint Mathew’s omission of the 
same important fact. The thing was very well known, and it did 
not occur to the historian that it Avas necessary to add any particu¬ 
lars concerning it. It agrees also with this solution and with no 
other, that neither Matthew nor John disposes of the person of our 
Lord in any manner whatever. Other intimations in Saint John’s 
Gospel of the then general notoriety of the story are the following : 
His manner of introducing his narrative, (ch. I. ver. 15.) ‘John bare 
■witness of him, and cried, saying’—evidently presupposes that his 
readers knew who John was. His rapid parenthetical reference to 
Johr'’s imprisonment, ‘for John was not yet cast into prison,’! could 
only come from a writer whose mind was in the habit of consider¬ 
ing John’s imprisonment as perfectly notorious. The description of 
Andrew by the addition ‘Simon Peter’s brother,’$ takes it for 
granted, that Simon Peter was well known. His name had not 
been mentioned before. The evangelist’s noticing!! the prevailing: 


* Also John ii. 13, and xvi. 28. 

J John iii. 24. § John ii. 40. 


t John XX. 17. 

II Johnxxi. 24. 



58 


Foley’s View of the 

misconstruction of a discourse, which Christ held with the beloved 
disciple, proves that the characters and the discourse were already 
public. And the observation which these instances afford, is of 
equal validity for the purpose of the present argument, whoever 
were the authors of the histories. 

Thesecircumstances;—first, the recognition of the account 
in its principal parts, by a series of succeeding writers; secondly, 
the total absence of any account of the origin of the religion sub¬ 
stantially different from ours; thirdly, the early and extensive prev¬ 
alence of rites and institutions which result from our account; 
fourthly, our account bearing, in its construction, proof that it is an 
account of facts which were known and believed at the time;—are 
sufficient, I conceive, to support an assurance, that the story which 
we have now, is, in general, the story which Christians had at the 
beginning. I say in general; by which term I mean, that it is the 
same in its texture, and in its principal facts. For instance, I make 
no doubt, for the reason above stated, but that the resurrection of 
the Founder of the religion was always a part of the Christian story 
Nor can a doubt of this remain upon the mind of any one who 
reflects that the resurrection is, in some form or other, asserted, 
referred to, or assumed, in every Christian writing, of every descrip¬ 
tion, which hath come down to us. 

And if our evidence stopped here, we should have a strong case 
to offer; for we should have to allege, that in the reign of Tiberius 
Caesar, a certain number of persons set about an attempt of estab¬ 
lishing a new religion in the world: in the prosecution of which 
purpose, they voluntarily encountered great dangers, undertook 
great labors, sustained great sufferings, aU for a miraculous story, 
which they published wherever they came; and that the resurrec¬ 
tion of a dead man, whom during nis life they had followed and 
accompanied, was a constant part of the story. I know nothing in 
the above statement which can, with any appearance of reason, be 
disputed; and I know nothing, in the history of the human species, 
similar to it. 


CHAP. VIII. 

That it tvas in the main the Story which we have now proved, from the 
authority of our historical Scriptures. 

That the story which we have now is, in the main, the story 
which the apostles published, is, I think, nearly certain, fVom the 
considerations which have been proposed. But whether’ when we 
come to the particulars, and the detail of the narrative, the historical 
books of the New Testament be deserving of credit as histories, so 
that a fact ought to be accounted true, because it is found in them, 
or whether they are entitled to be considered as representing the 
accounts, which, true or false, the apostles published;—whether 
their authority, in either of these views, can be trusted to, is a point 


Evidences of Christianity. 59 

which necessarily depends upon what we know of the books, and 
of their authors. 

Now, in treating of this part of our argument, the first and most 
mote;ial observation upon the subject is, that such was the situation 
of the authors to whom the four Gospels are ascribed, that, if any 
one of the four be genuine, it is sufficient for our purpose. The 
received author of the first was an original apostle and emissary of 
the religion. The received author of the second was an inhabitant 
of Jerusaleni at the time, to whose house the apostles were wont to 
resort, and himself an attendant upon one of the most eminent of 
that number. The received author of the third, was a stated com¬ 
panion and fellow-traveller of the most active of all the teachers 
ol the religion, and, in the course of his travels, frequently in the 
society of the original apostles. The received author of the fourth, 
as well as of the first, was one of these apostles. No stronger evi¬ 
dence of the truth of a history can arise from the situation of the 
historian, than what is here offered. The authors of all the histories 
lived at the time and upon the spot. The authors of two of the his¬ 
tories were present at many of the scenes which they describe; 
eye-witnesses of the facts, ear-witnesses of the discourses; writing 
from personal knowledge and recollection; and, what strengthens 
their testimony, writing upon a subject in which their minds were 
deeply engaged, and in which, as they must have been very fre¬ 
quently repeating the accounts to others, the passages of the history 
would be kept continually alive in their memory. Whoever reads 
the Gospels (and they ought to be read for this particular purpose), 
will find in them not merely a general affirmation of miraculous 
powere, but detailed circumstantial accounts of miracles, with spe¬ 
cifications of time, place, and persons; and these accounts miiuy 
and various. In the Gospels, therefore, which bear the names of 
Matthew and John, these narratives, if they really proceeded fr im 
these men, must either be true, as far as the fidelity of human recol¬ 
lection is usually to be depended upon, that is, must be true in sub¬ 
stance, and in their principal parts (which is sufficient for the pur¬ 
pose of proving a supernatural agency), or they must be wilful and 
meditated falsehoods. Yet the writers who fabricated and uttere 
these falsehoods, if they be such, are of the number of those, who 
unless the whole contexture of the Christian story be a dream, sac 
rificed their ease and safety in the cause and for a purpose the most 
inconsistent that is possible with dishonest intentions. They were 
villains for no end but to teach honesty, and martyrs without the 
least prospect of honor or advantage. 

The Gospels which bear the names of Mark and Luke, although 
not the narratives of eye-witnesses, are, if genuine, removed from 
that only by one degree. They are the narratives of contemporary 
writers, of writers themselves mixing with the business; one of the 
two probably living in the place which was the principal scene of 
action; both living in habits of society and correspondence with 
those who had been present at the transactions which they relate. 
The latter of them accordingly tells us, fond with apparent sincerity. 


60 


Paley's View of the 

because he tells it without pretending to personal knowledge, and 
without claiming for his work greater authority than belonged to it;, 
that the things which were believed amongst Christians, came from 
those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of 
the word; that he had traced accounts up to their source; and that 
he was prepared to instruct his reader in the certainty of the things 
which he related.* Very few histories lie so close to their facts; 
very few historians are so nearly connected with the subject of their 
narrative, or possess such means of authentic information as these. 

The situation of the writers applies to the truth of the facts which 
they record. But at present we use their testimony to a point somewhat 
short of this, namely, that the facts recorded in the Gospels, whether 
true or false, are the facts, and the sort of facts, which the original 
preachers of the religion alleged. Strictly speaking, I am concerned 
•only to show, that what the Gospels contain is the same as what the 
apostles preached. Now, how stands the proof of this point? A set of 
men went about the world, publishing a story composed of miraculous 
accounts, (for miraculous from the very nature and exigency of the 
case they must have been,) and, upon the strength of these accounts, 
called upon mankind to quit the religions in which they had been 
educated, and to take up, thenceforth, a new system of opinions, 
and new rules of action. What is more in attestation of these ac¬ 
counts, that is, in support of an institution of which these accounts 
were the foundation, is, that the same men voluntarily exposed 
themselves to harassing and perpetual labors, dangers, and suffer¬ 
ings. We want to know what these accounts were. We have the 
particulars, i. e. many particulars, from two of their own number. 
We have them from an attendant of one of the number, and who, 
there is reason to believe, was an inhabitant of Jerusalem at the 
time. We have them from a fourth writer, who accompanied the 
most laborious missionary of the institution in his travels; who, in 
the course of these travels, was frequently brought into the society 
of the rest; and who, let it be observed, begins his narrative by 
telling us that he is about to relate the things which had been de¬ 
livered by those who were ministers of the word, and eye-witnesses 
of the facts. I do not know what information can be more satisfac¬ 
tory than this. We may, perhaps, perceive the force and value of 
it more sensibly, if we reflect how requiring we should have been 
if we had wanted it. Supposing it to be sufficiently proved, that the 
religion now professed among us, owed its original to the preaching 
and ministry of a number of men, who, about eighteen centuries 
ago, set forth in the world a new system of religious opinions, 
founded upon certain extraordinary things which they related of a 


*■ Why should not the candid and modest preface of this historian be 
believed, as well as that which Dion Cassius prefixes to his Life of Corn- 
modus? ‘These things and the following I write not from the report of 
others, but from my own knowledge and observation.' I see no reason 
to doubt but that both passages describe truly enough the situation of 
the authors. 



Evidences of Christianity. 


61 


wonderful person who had appeared in Judea; suppose it to be 
also sufficiently proved, that, in the course and prosecution of their 
ministry, these men had subjected themselves to extreme hardships, 
fatigue, and peril; but suppK)se the accounts which they published 
had not been committed to writing till some ages after their times, 
or at least that no histories, but what had been composed some ages 
afterw'ard, had reached our hands; we should have said, and with 
reason, that we were willing to believe these men under the cir¬ 
cumstances in which they delivered their testimony, but that we 
did not, at this day, know with sufficient evidence what their testi¬ 
mony was. Had we received the particulars of it from any of their 
own number, from any of those who lived and conversed with them, 
from any of their hearers, or even from any of their contemporaries, 
we should have had something to rely upon. Now, if our books be 
genuine, we have all these.. We have the very species of informa¬ 
tion which, as it appears to me, our imagination w'ould have carved 
out for us, if it had been wanting. 

But I have said, that, if any one of the four Gospels be genuine, 
we have not only direct historical testimony to the point we con¬ 
tend for, but testimony which, so far as that point is concerned, can 
not reasonably be rejected. If the first Gospel was really written 
by Matthew, we have the narrative of one of the number, from 
which to judge what were the miracles, and the kind of miracles, 
which the apostles attributed to Jesus. Although, for argument’s 
sake, and only for argument’s sake, we should allow that this Gos¬ 
pel had been erroneously ascribed to Matthew; yet, if the Gospel 
of Saint John be genuine, the observation holds with no less 
strength. Again, although the Gospels both of Matthew and John 
could be supposed to be spurious, yet, if the Gospel of Saint Luke 
were truly the composition of that person, or of any person, be his 
name what it might, who was actually in the situation in which the 
author of that Gospel professes himself to have been, or if the Gos¬ 
pel which bears the name of Mark really proceeded from him; we 
still, even upon the lowest supposition, possess the accounts of one 
writer at least, who was not only contemporary with the apostles, 
but associated with them in their ministry; which authority seems 
sufficient, when the question is simply what it was whicn these 
apostles advanced. 

I think it material to have this well noticed. The New Testa¬ 
ment contains a great number of distinct writings, the genuineness 
of any one of which is almost sufficient to prove the truth of the 
religion: it contains, however, four distinct histories, the genuine¬ 
ness of any one of which is perfectly sufficient. If, therefore, we 
must be considered as encountering the risk of error in assigning 
the authors of our books, we are entitled to the advantage of so 
many separate probabilities. And although it should appear that 
some of the evangelists had seen and used each other’s works, this 
discovery, whilst it subtracts indeed from their characters as testi¬ 
monies strictly independent, diminishes, I conceive, little, either 
their separate authority (by which I mean the authority of any one 

F 


62 Paley's View of the 

that is genuine), or their mutual confirmation. For, let the most dis 
advantageous supposition possible be made concerning them; let it 
be allowed, what I should have no great difficulty in admitting, that 
Mark compiled his history almost entirely from those of Matthew 
and Luke; and let it also for a moment be supposed that these his¬ 
tories were not, in fact, written by Matthew and Luke; yet, if it be 
true that Mark, a contemporary of the apostles, living in habits of 
society with the apostles, a fellow-traveller and fellow-laborer with 
some of them; if, I say, it be true that this person made the com¬ 
pilation, it follows, that the writings from which he made it existed 
in the time of the apostles, and not only so, but that they were then 
in such esteem and credit, that a companion of the apostles formed 
a history out of them. Let the Gospel of Mark be called an epitome 
of that of Matthew; if a person in the situation in which Mark is 
described to have been, actually made the epitome, it affords the 
strongest possible attestation to the character of the original. 

Again, parallelisms in sentences, in words, and in the order of 
words, have been traced out between the Gospel of Matthew and 
that of Luke; which concurrence cannot easily be explained otlier- 
wise than by supposing, either that Luke had consulted Matthew’s 
history, or, what appears to me in nowise incredible, that minutes 
of some of Christ’s discourses, as well as brief memoirs of some 
passages of his life, had been committed to writing at the time; and 
that such written accounts had by both authors been occasionally 
admitted into their histories. Either supposition is perfectly con¬ 
sistent with the acknowledged formation of Saint Luke’s narrative, 
w’ho professes not to write as an eye-witness, but to have investi¬ 
gated the original of eveiy account which he delivers; in other 
words, to hate collected them from such documents and testimonies, 
as he, who had the best opportunities of making inquiries, judged to 
be authentic. Therefore, allowing that this writer also, in some in¬ 
stances, borrowed from the Gospel which w'e call Matthew’s, and 
once more allowing, for the sake of stating the argument, that that 
Gospel was not the production of the author to whom we ascribe it; 
yet still we have, in Saint Luke’s Gospel, a histo^ given by a writer 
immediately connected with the transaction, with the witnesses of 
it, with the persons engaged in it, and composed from materials 
which that person, thus situated, deemed to be safe sources of intel¬ 
ligence ; in other words, whatever supposition be made concerning 
any or all the other Gospels, if Saint Luke’s Gospel be genuine, we 
have in it a credible evidence of the point which we maintain. 

The Gospel according to feaint John appears to be, and is on all 
hands allowed to be, an independent testimony, strictly and properly 
so called. Notwithstanding, therefore, any connexion, or supposed 
connexion, between some of the Gospels, I again repeat what I be¬ 
fore said, that if any one of the four be genuine, we have, in that 
one, strong reason, from the character and situation of the writer, to 
believe that we possess the accounts which the original emissaries 
of the religion delivered. 

Secondly: In treating of the vinitten evidences of Christianity, 


Evidences of Christianity. 63 

next to their separate, we are to consider their aggregate authority. 
IVow, there is in the evangelic history a cumulation of testimony 
w hich belongs hardly to any other history, but which our habitual 
mode of reading the Scriptures sometimes causes us to overlook. 
When a passage, in any wise relating to the history of Christ, is read 
to us out of the epistle of Clemens Romanus, the epistle of Ignatius, 
of Polycarp, or from any other writing of that age, we are immedi¬ 
ately sensible of the confirmation which it afibrds to the Scripture 
account. Here is a new witness. Now, if we had been accus¬ 
tomed to read the Gospel of Matthew alone, and had known that 
of Luke only as the generality of Christians know the writings of 
the apostolic fathers, that is, had known that such a writing was ex¬ 
tant and acknowledged; when we came, for the first time, to look 
into what it contained, and found many of the facts which Matthew' 
recorded, recorded also there, many other facts of a similar nature 
added, and throughout the whole work the same general series of 
transactions slated, and the same general character of the person 
who w'as the subject of the history preserved, I apprehend that we 
should feel our minds strongly impressed by this discovery of fresh 
evidence. We should feel a renewal of the same sentiment in first 
reading the Gospel of Saint John. That of Saint Mark perhaps 
would strike us as an abridgment of the history with which we were 
already acquainted; but we should naturally reflect, that if that 
history was abridged by such a person as Mark, or by any person of 
so early an age, it afforded one of the highest possible attestations to 
the value of the work. This successive disclosure of proof would 
leave us assured, that there must have been at least some reality in 
a story which not one, but many, had taken in hand to commit to 
writing. The very existence of four separate histories would satisfy 
us that the subject had a foundation; and when, amidst the variety 
which the different information of the different writers had supplied 
to their accounts, or which their different choice and judgment in 
selecting their materials had produced, we observed many facts to 
stand the same in all; of these facts, at least, we should conclude, 
that they were fixed in their credit and publicity. If, after this, we 
should come to the knowledge of a distinct history, and that also 
of the same age with the rest, taking up the subject where the 
others had left it, and carrying on a narrative of the eflTects produced 
in the world by the extraordinary causes of which we had already 
been informed, and which effects subsist at this day, we should think 
the reality of the original story in no little degree established by this 
supplement. If subsequent inquiries should bring to our knowledge, 
one after another, letters written by some of the principal agents in 
the business, upon the business, and during the time of their ac¬ 
tivity and concern in it, assuming all along and recognizing the 
original story, agitating the questions that arose out of it, pressing 
the obligations which resulted from it, giving advice and directions 
to those who acted upon it; I conceive that we should find, in eveiy 
one of these, a still farther support to the conclusion we had formed. 
At present, the weight of this successive confirmation is, in a great 


64 Foley's View of the 

measure, unperceived, by us. The evidence does not appear to us 
what it is; for, being from our infancy accustomed to regard the 
New Testament as one book, we see in it only one testimony. The 
whole occurs to us as a single evidence; and its different parts, not 
as distinct attestations, but as different portions only of the same. 
Yet in this conception of the subject, we are certainly mistaken: 
for the very discrepancies among the several documents which form 
our volume, prove, if all other proof were wanting, that in their 
original composition they were separate, and most of them inde¬ 
pendent productions. 

If we dispose our ideas in a different order, the matter stands 
thus: Whilst the transaction was recent, and the original witnesses 
were at hand to relate it; and whilst the apostles were busied in 
preaching and travelling, in collecting disciples, in forming and 
regulating societies of converts, in supporting themselves against 
opposition; whilst they exercised their ministry under the harassings 
of frequent persecution, and in a state of almost continual alarm, it 
is not probable that, in this engaged, anxious, and unsettled condi¬ 
tion of life, they would think immediately of writing histories for 
the information of the public or of posterity.* But it is very proba¬ 
ble that emergencies might draw from some of them occasional let¬ 
ters upon the subject of their mission, to converts, or to societies of 
converts, with which they were connected; or that they might ad¬ 
dress written discourses and exhortations to the disciples of the in¬ 
stitution at large, which would be received and read with a respect 
proportioned to the character of the writer. Accounts in the mean 
time would get abroad of the extraordinary things that had been 
passing, written with different degrees of information and correct¬ 
ness. The extension of the Christian society, which could no longer 
be instructed by a personal intercourse with the apostles, and the 
possible circulation of imperfect or erroneous narratives, would 
soon teach some amongst them the expediency of sending forth 
authentic memoirs of the life and doctrine of their Master. When 
accounts appeared authorized by the name, and credit, and situa¬ 
tion, of the writers, recommended or recognized by the apostles and 
first preachers of the religion, or found to coincide with what the 
apostles and first preachers of the religion had taught, other ac¬ 
counts would fall into disuse and neglect; whilst these, maintain¬ 
ing their reputation (as, if genuine and well founded, they would 
do) under the test of time, inquiry, and contradiction, might be ex¬ 
pected to make their way into the hands of Christians of all coun¬ 
tries of the world. 

This seems the natural progress of the business; and w’ith this 
the records in our possession, and the evidence concerning them. 


* This thought occiiried to Eusebius: ‘Nor were the apostles of 
Christ greatly concerned about the writing of books, being engaged in a 
more excellent ministry, which is above all human power.’ Eccles. Hist. 
1. iii. c. 24.—The same consideration accounts also for tlie paucity of 
Christian writings in the first century of its era. 



Evidences of Christianity. 65 

correspond. We have remaining, in the first place, many letters of 
the kind above described, which have been preserved with a care 
and fidelity answering to the respect with which we may suppose 
such letters would be received. But as these letters were not 
written to prove the truth of the Christian religion, in the sense in 
which we regard that question; nor to convey information of facts, 
of which those to whom the letters were written had been pre¬ 
viously informed; w e are not to look in them for any thing more 
than incidental allusions to the Christian history. We are able, 
however, to gather from these documents various particular attesta¬ 
tions which have been already enumerated; and this is a species 
of written evidence, as far as it goes, in the highest degree satisfac¬ 
tory, and in point of time perhaps the first. But for our more cir¬ 
cumstantial information, we have, in the next place, five direct his¬ 
tories, bearing the names of persons acquainted, by their situation, 
with the truth of what they relate, and three of them purporting, in 
the very body of the narrative, to be written by such persons; of 
which books w'e know, that some were in the hands of those who 
were contemporaries of the apostles, and that, in the age imme¬ 
diately posterior to that, they were in the hands, we may say, of 
every one, and received by Christians with so much respect and 
deference, as to be constantly quoted and referred to by them, with¬ 
out any doubt of the truth of their accounts. They w'ere treated 
as such histories, proceeding from such authorities, might expect to 
be treated. In the preface to one of our histories, we have intima¬ 
tion left us of the existence of some ancient accounts which are 
now lost. There is nothing in this circumstance that can surprise 
us. It was to be expected, from the magnitude and novelty of the 
occasion, that such accounts would swarm. When better accounts 
came forth, these died aw'ay. Our present histories superseded 
others. They soon acquired a character and established a reputa¬ 
tion which does not appear to have belonged to any other: that, at 
least, can be proved concerning them, which cannot be proved con¬ 
cerning any other. 

But to return to the point which led to these reflections. By con¬ 
sidering our records in either of the two views in which we have 
represented them, we shall perceive that we possess a colleclion of 
proofs, and not a naked or solitary testimony ; and that the written 
evidence is of such a kind, and comes to us in such a state, as the 
natural order and progress of things, in the infancy of the institu¬ 
tion, might be expected to produce. 

Thirdly: The genuineness of the historical books of the New 
Testament is undoubtedly a point of importance, because the 
strength of their evidence is augmented by our knowledge of the 
situation of their authors, their relation to the subject, and the part 
which they sustained in the transaction; and the testimonies which 
we are able to produce, compose a firm ground of persuasion, that 
the Gospels Were written by the persons whose names they bear. 
Nevertheless, I must be allowed to state, that to the argument which 
[ am endeavoring to maintain, this point is not essential; I mean, so 

F 2 


66 


Palsy's View of the 

essential as that the fate of the argument depends upon it. The 
question before us is, whether the Gospels exhibit the story which 
the apostles and first emissaries of the religion published, and for 
which they acted and suffered in the manner in which, for some 
miraculous story or other, they did act and suffer. Now let us sup¬ 
pose that we possessed no other information concerning these books 
than that they were written by early disciples of Christianity; that 
they were known and read during the time, or near the time, of 
the original apostles of the religion; that by Christians whom the 
apostles instructed, by societies of Christians which the apostles 
founded, these books were received (by which term ‘ received,’ I 
mean that they were believed to contain authentic accounts of the 
transactions upon which the religion rested, and accounts which 
were accordingly used, repeated, and relied upon), this reception 
would be a valid proof that these books, whoever were the authors 
of them, must have accorded with what the apostles taught. A 
reception by the first race of Christians, is evidence that they agreed 
with what the first teachers of the religion delivered. In particular, 
if they had not agreed with what the apostles themselves preached, 
how could they have gained credit in churches and societies which 
the apostles established ? 

Now the fact of the early existence, and not only of their exist¬ 
ence but their reputation, is made out by some ancient testimonies 
which do not happen to specify the names of the writers: add to 
which, what hath been alreacfy hinted, that two out of the four 
Gospels contain averments in the body of the history, which, though 
they do not disclose the names, fix the time and situation of the 
authors, viz. that one was written by an eye-witness of the suffer¬ 
ings of Christ, the other by a contemporary of the apostles. In the 
Gospel of St. John, (xix. 35.) after describing the crucifixion, with 
the particular circumstance of piercing Christ’s side with a spear, 
the historian adds, as for himself, ‘ and he that saw it bare record, 
and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye 
might believe.’ Again, (xxi. 24.) after relating a conversation whicn 
passed between Peter and ‘ the disciple,’ as it is there expressed, 
‘ whom Jesus loved,’ it is added, ‘ this is the disciple which testifieth 
of these things, and wrote these things.’ This testimony, let it bo 
remarked, is not less worthy of regard, because it is, in one view, 
imperfect. The name is not mentioned; which, if a fraudulent 
purpose had been intended, would have been done. The third of 
our present Gospels purports to have been written by the person 
who wrote the Acts of the Apostles ; in which latter history, or 
rather latter part of the same history, the author, by using in various 
places the first personal plural, declares himself to have been a 
contemporaty of all, and a companion of one, of the original 
preachers of the religion. 


Evidences of Christianity. 


67 


CHAP. IX. 

Of the Authenticity of the Historical Scriptures, in Eleven Sections. 

Not forgetting, therefore, what credit is due to the evangelical 
history, supposing even any one of the four Gospels to be genuine; 
what credit is due to the Gospels, even supposing nothing to be 
known concerning them but that they were written by early dis¬ 
ciples of the religion, and received with deference by early Chris¬ 
tian churches; more especially not forgetting what credit is due to 
the New Testament in its capacity of cumulative evidence; we now 
proceed to state the proper and distinct proofs, which show not only 
the general value of these records, but their specific authority, and 
the high probability there is that they actually came from the per¬ 
sons whose names they bear. 

There are, however, a few preliminary reflections, by which we 
may draw up wdth more regularity to the propositions upon which 
the close and particular discussion of the subject depends. Of which 
nature are the following; 

I. We are able to produce a great number of ancient manuscripts, 
found in many different countries, and in countries widely distant 
from each other, all of them anterior to the art of printing, some 
certainly seven or eight hundred years old, and some which have 
been preserved probably above a thousand years.* We have also 
many ancient versions of these books, and some of them into lan¬ 
guages which are not at present, nor for many ages have been, 
spoken in any part of the world. The existence of these manuscripts 
and versions proves that the Scriptures were not the production of 
any modern contrivance. It does away also the uncertainty which 
hangs over such publications as the works, real or pretended, of 
Ossian and Rowley, in which the editors are challenged to produce 
their manuscripts, and to show where they obtained their copies. 
The number of manuscripts, far exceeding those of any other book, 
and their wide dispersion, afford an argument, in some measure, to 
the senses, that the Scriptures anciently, in like manner as at this 
day, were more read and sought after than any other books, and 
that also in many different countries. The greatest part of spurious 
Christian writings are utterly lost, the rest preserved by some single 
manuscript. There is weight also in Dr. Bentley’s observation, that 
the New Testament has suffered less injury by the errors of tran- 
scribere, than the works of any profane author of the same size and 
antiquity; that is, there never was any writing, in the preservation 
and purity of which the world was so interested or so careful. 

II. An argument of great weight with those who are judges of 
the proofs upon which it is founded, and capable, through their tes- 


* The Alexandrian Manuscript, now in the British Museum, was writ 
ten probably in the fourth or fifth century. 



68 Paley's View of the 

timony, of being addressed to every understanding, is that which 
arises from the style and language of the New Testament. It is just 
such a language as might be expected from the apostles, from per¬ 
sons of their age and in their situation, and from no other persons. 
It is the style neither of classic authors, nor of the ancient Christian 
fathers, but Greek coming from men of Hebrew origin ; abounding, 
that is, with Hebraic and Syriac idioms, such as would naturally be 
found in the writings of men who used a language spoken indeed 
where they lived, but not the common dialect of the country. This 
happy peculiarity is a strong proof of the genuineness of these 
writings: for who should forge them ? The Christian fathers were 
for the most part totally ignorant of Hebrew, and therefore were 
not likely to insert Hebraisms and ^riasms into their writings. The 
few who had a knowledge of the ifebrew, as Justin Martyr, Origen, 
and Epiphanius, wrote in a language which bears no resemblance 
to that of the New Testament. The Nazarenes, who understood 
Hebrew, used chiefly, perhaps almost entirely, the Gospel of Saint 
Matthew, and therefore cannot be suspected of forging the rest of 
the sacred writings. The argument, at any rate, proves the antiquity 
of these books ; that they belonged to the a^e of the apostles; that 
they could be composed indeed in no other."^ 

III. Why should we question the genuineness of these books ? Is 
it for that they contain accounts of supernatural events ? I appre¬ 
hend that this, at the bottom, is the real, though secret, cause of our 
hesitation about them; for, had the writings inscribed with the 
names of Matthew' and John, related nothing but ordinary history, 
there would have been no more doubt whether these writings were 
theirs, than there is concerning the acknowledged works of Jose¬ 
phus or Philo; that is, there would have been no doubt at all. Now 
it ought to be considered that this reason, however it may apply to 
the credit which is given to a writer’s judgment or veracity, affects 
the question of genuineness very indirectly. The wmrks of Bede 
exhibit many W'onderful relations: but who, for that reason, doubts 
that they were written by Bede ? The same of a multitude of other 
authors. To which may be added, that we ask no more for our 
books than w'hat we allow to other books in some sort similar to 
ours : we do not deny the genuineness of the Koran; we admit that 
the history of Apollonius Tyanoeus, purporting to be written by Phi- 
lostratus, was really written by Philostratus. 

IV. If it had been an easy thing in the early times of the institu¬ 
tion to have forged Christian waitings, and to have obtained cur¬ 
rency and reception to the forgeries, we should have had many 
appearing in the name of Christ himself. No writings would have 
been received with so much avidity and respect as these: conse¬ 
quently none afforded so great temptation to forgery. Yet have we 


* See this argument stated more at large in Michaelis’s Introduction 
(Marsh's translation,) vol. i. c. ii. sect. 10, from which these observations 
are taken. 



Evidences of Christianity. 69 

heard but of one attempt of this sort, deserving of the smallest 
notice, that in a piece of a very few lines, and so far from succeed¬ 
ing, I mean, from obtaining acceptance and reputation, or an accept¬ 
ance and reputation in any wise similar to that which can be proved 
to have attended the books of the New Testament, that it is not so 
much as mentioned by any writer of the first three centuries. The 
learned reader need not be informed that I mean the epistle of 
Christ to Abgarus, king of Edessa, found at present in the work of 
Eusebius,* as a piece acknowledged by him, though not without 
considerable doubt whether the whole passage be not an interpola¬ 
tion, as it is most certain, that, after the publication of Eusebius’s 
work, this epistle was universally rejected.t 

V. If the ascription of the Gospels to their respective authors had 
been arbitrary or conjectural, they w'ould have been ascribed to 
more eminent men. This observation holds concerning the first 
three Gospels, the reputed authors of which were enabled, by their 
situation, to obtain true intelligence, and were likely to deliver ^ 
honest account of what they knew, but were persons not distin¬ 
guished in the history bv extraordinary marks of notice or com¬ 
mendation. Of the apostles, I hardly know any one of whom less 
is said than Matthew, or of whom the little that is said, is less cal¬ 
culated to magnify his character. Of Mark, nothing is said in the 
Gospels; and what is said of any person of that name in the Acts, 
and in the Epistles, in no part bestows praise or eminence upon him. 
The name of Luke is mentioned only in St. Paul’s Epistle,t and 
veiy transiently. The judgment, therefore, which assigned these 
writings to these authors proceeded, it may be presumed, upon 
proper knowledge and evidence, and not upon a voluntary choice 
of names. 

yi. Christian writers and Christian churches appear to have soon 
arrived at a very general agreement upon the subject, and that 
without the interposition of any public authority. When the diver¬ 
sity of opinion, which prevailed, and prevails among Christians in 
other points, is considered, their concurrence in the canon of Scrip¬ 
ture is remarkable, and of ^eat weight, especially as it seems to 
have been the result of private and free inquiry. We have no 
knowledge of any interference of authority in the question, before 
the council of Laodicea in the year 363. Probably the decree of 


* Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 15. 

t Augustin, A.D. 895, (De Consens. Evang. c. 34.) had heard that the 
Pagans pretended to be possessed of an epistle from Christ to Peter and 
Paul; but he had never seen it, and appears to doubt of the existence of 
any such piece, either genuine or spurious. No other ancient writer 
mentions it. He also, and he alone, notices, and that in order to condemn 
it, an epistle ascribed to Christ by the Manichees, A. D. 270, and a short 
hymn attributed to him by the Priscillianists, A.D. 378. (cont. Faust. Man. 
lib. xxviii. c. 4.) The lateness of the writer who notices these things, the 
manner in which he notices them, and, above all, the silence of every 
preceding writer, render them unworthy of consideration. 

JCol. iv. 14. 2Tim. iv. 11. Philem. 24. 



70 


Foley's View of the 

this council rather declared than regulated the public judgment, or, 
more properly speaking, the judgment of some neighboring churches ; 
the council itself consisting of no more than thirty or forty bishops 
of Lydia and the adjoining countries.'* Nor does its authority, seem 
to have extended farther; for we find numerous Christian writers, 
after this time, discussing the question, ‘What books were entitled 
to be received as Scripture,’ with great freedom, upon proper 
grounds of evidence, and without any reference to the decision at 
Laodicea. 

These considerations are not to be neglected: but of an argu¬ 
ment concerning the genuineness of ancient writings, the substance, 
undoubtedly, and strength, is ancient testimony. 

This testimony it is necessary to exhibit somewhat in detail: for 
when Christian advocates merely tell us that we have the same 
reason for believing the Gospels to be written by the evangelists 
whose names they bear, as we have for believing the Commenta¬ 
ries to be CsBsar’s, the .^neid Virgil’s, or the Orations Cicero’s, they 
content themselves with an imperfect representation. They state 
nothing more than what is true, but they do not state the truth cor¬ 
rectly. In the number, variety, and early date of our testimonies, 
we far exceed all other ancient books. For one, which the most 
celebrated work of the most celebrated Greek or Roman writer can 
allege, we produce many. But then it is more requisite in our books, 
than in theirs, to separate and distinguish them from spurious com¬ 
petitors. The result, I am convinced, will be satisfactory to every 
fair inquirer: but this circumstance renders an inquiry necessaiy. 

In a work, however, like the present, there is a difficulty in fmd- 
ing a place for evidence of this kind., To pursue the details of 
proofs throughout, would be to transcribe a great part of Dr. Lard- 
ner’s eleven octavo volumes: to leave the argument without proofs, 
is to leave it without eflfect; for the persuasion produced by this 
species of evidence depends upon a view and introduction of the 
particulars which compose it. 

The method which I propose to myself is, first, to place before 
the reader, in one view, the propositions w’hich comprise the several 
heads of our testimony, and afterward to repeat the same proposi¬ 
tions in sP many distinct sections, with the necessary authorities 
subjoined to each.t 

The following, then, are the allegations upon the subject, which 
are capable of being established by proof:— 

I. That the historical books of the New Testament, meaning 
thereby the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, are quoted, 
or alluded to, by a series of Christian writers, beginning with those 
who were contemporary with the apostles, or who immediately 


* Lardner, Cred. vol. viii. p. 201, &c. 

t The reader, when he has the propositions before him, will observe that 
the argument, if he should omit the sections, proceeds connectedly from 
this point. 




Evidences of Christianity. 71 

followed them, and proceeding in close and regular succession from 
their time to the present. 

II. That when they are quoted, or alluded to, they are quoted or 
alluded to with peculiar respect, as books sui generis; as possessing 
an authority which belonged to no other books, and as conclusive 
in all questions and controversies amongst Christians. 

III. That they were, in very early times, collected into a distinct 
volume. 

IV. That they were distinguished by appropriate names and titles 
of respect. 

V. That they were publicly read and expounded in the religious 
assemblies of the early Christians. 

VI. That commentaries were written upon them, harmonies 
formed out of them, different copies carefully collated, and versions 
of them made into difierent languages. 

VII. That they were received by Christians of different sects, by 
many heretics as well as Catholics, and usually appealed to by both 
sides in the controversies which arose in those days. 

VIII. That the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen 
Epistles of Saint Paul, the first Epistle of John, and the first of Peter, 
were received, without doubt, by those who doubted concerning 
the other books which are included in our present canon. 

IX. That the Gospels were attacked by the early adversaries of 
Christianity, as books containing the accounts upon which the reli¬ 
gion was founded. 

X. That formal catalogues of authentic Scriptures were published; 
in all which our present sacred histories were included. 

XI. That these propositions cannot be affirmed of any other books 
claiming to be books of Scripture; by which are meant those books 
which are commonly called apocryphal books of the New Testa¬ 
ment. 

SECT. I. 

The historical books of the New Testament, meaning thereby the four 
Go^els and the Acts of the Apostles, are quoted, or alluded to by a 
series of Christian writers, beginning with those who were contem¬ 
porary with the apostles, or who immediately foUowed them, and pro¬ 
ceeding in close and regular succession from their time to the present. 

The medium of proof stated in this proposition is, of all others, 
the most unquestionable, the least liable to any practices of fraud, 
and is not diminished by the lapse of ages. Bishop Burnet, in the 
History of his Own Times, inserts various extracts from lord Claren¬ 
don’s History. One such insertion is a proof, that lord Clarendon’s 
History was extant at the time when bishop Burnet wrote, that it 
had been read by bishop Burnet, that it was received by bishop 
Burnet as a work of lord Clarendon, and also regarded by him as 
an authentic account of the transactions which it relates; and it will 
be a proof of these points a thousand years hence, or as long as the 


72 Paley^s View of the 

books exist. Quintilian having quoted as Cicero’s* that well-knowTi 
trait of dissembled vanity;— 

‘ Si quid est in me ingenii, Judices, quod sentio quam sit exiguum— 
the quotation would be strong evidence, were there any doubt, that 
the oration, which opens with this address, actually came from Cice¬ 
ro’s pen. These instances, how'ever simple, may serve to point out 
to a reader, who is little accustomed to such researches, the nature 
and value of the argument. 

The testimonies which we have to bring forward under this pro¬ 
position are the following: 

1. There is extant an epistle ascribed to Bamabas,t the companior 
of Paul. It is quoted as the epistle of Barnabas, by Clement of 
Alexandria, a. d. cxciv ; by Origen, a. d. ccxxx. It is mentioned by 
Eusebius, a. d. cccxv, and by Jerome, a. d. cccxcii, as an ancient 
work in their time, bearing the name of Barnabas, and as w’ell 
known and read amongst Christians, though not accounted a part 
of Scripture. It purports to have been written soon after the de¬ 
struction of Jerusalem, during the calamities which followed that 
disaster; and it bears the character of the age to which it professes 
to belong. 

In this epistle appears the following remarkable passage :—‘ Let 
us, therefore, beware lest it come upon us, as it is written ; There 
are many called, few chosen.’ From the expression, ‘ as it is writ¬ 
ten,’ we infer with certainty, that, at the time wdien the author of 
this epistle lived, there was a book extant, well known to Chris¬ 
tians, and of authority amongst them, containing these words;— 
‘ Many are called, few chosen.’ Such a book is our present Gospel 
of Saint Matthew, in which this text is twice found,! and is found 
in no other book now known. There is a farther observation to be 
made upon the terms of the quotation. The writer of the epistle 
was a Jew. The phrase ‘it is written,’ was the very form in which 
the Jews quoted their Scriptures. It is not probable, therefore, that 
he would have used this phrase, and without qualification, of any 
books but what had acquired a kind of scriptural authority. If the 
passage remarked in this ancient writing had been found in one of 
St. Paul’s Epistles, it would have been esteemed by every one 
a high testimony to St. Matthew’s Gospel. It ought, therefore, to 
be remembered, that the writing in w’hich it is found was probably 
by very few years posterior to those of St. Paul. 

Beside this passage, there are also in the epistle before us, several 
others, in which the sentiment is the same with what we meet with 
in St. Matthew’s Gospel, and two or three in which we recognize 
the same words. In particular, the author of the epistle repeats the 


* Q,uint. lib. xi. c. i. * 

t Lardner, Cred. edit. 1755, vol. i. p. 23, &c. The reader will observe 
from the references, that the materials of these sections are almost en¬ 
tirely extracted from Dr. Lardner’s work;—my office consisted in arrange¬ 
ment and selection. 

1 Matt. XX. 16. xxii. 14. 



Evidences of Christianity. 73 

precey t, ‘ Give to every one that asketh thee and saith that 
Christ chose as his apostles, who were to preach the Gospel, men 
who were great sinners, that he might show that he came ‘ not to 
Call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’t 

II. We are in possession of an epistle written by Clement, bishop 
of Rome,t whom ancient writers, without any doubt or scruple, as¬ 
sert to have been the Clement whom Saint Paul mentions, Phil, 
iv. 3.; ‘with Clement also, and other my fellow-laborers, whose 
names are in the book of life.’ This epistle is spoken of by the 
ancients as an epistle acknowledged by all; and, as Irenseus well 
represents its value, ‘ written by Clement, who had seen the blesse 
apostles, and conversed with them ,* who had the preaching of the 
apostles still sounding in his ears, and their traditions before his 
eyes.’ It is addressed to the church of Corinth ; and what alone 
may seem almost decisive of its authenticity, Dionysius, bishop of 
Corinth, about the year 170, i. e. about eighty or ninety years after 
the epistle was written, bears witness, ‘ that it had been wont to be 
read in that church from ancient times.’ 

This epistle affords, amongst others, the following valuable pas¬ 
sages:—^‘Especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus 
which he spake, teaching gentleness and long-suffering: for thus 
he said :$ “ Be ye merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that 
it may be forgiven unto you; as you do, so shall it be done unto 
you; as 3a3u give, so shall it be given unto you; as ye judge, so 
shall ye be judged; as ye show kindness, so shall kindness be 
shown unto you: with what measure ye mete, wi*h the same shall 
it be measured to you.” By this command, and by these rules, let 
us establish ourselves, that ye may always walk obediently to his 
holy vvords.’ 

Again; ‘ Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, for he said, 
“ Woe to that man by whom offences come ; it were better for him 
that he had not been bom, than that he should offend one of my 
elect; it were better for him that a millstone should be tied about 
his neck, and that he should be drowned in the sea, than that he 
should offend one of my little ones.” ’|| 

In both these passages, we perceive the high respect paid to the 
words of Christ as recorded by the evangelists; ‘ Remember the 


* Matt. V. 42. t Matt. ix. 13. J Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 62, &c. 

§ ‘ Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.’ Matt. v. 7. 
—‘ Forgrive, and ye shall be forgiven ; give, and it shall be given unto 
you.’ Luke vi. 37, 38—‘ Judge not, that ye be not judged; for with what 
judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged ; and with what measure ye mete, 
it shall be measured to you again.’ Matt. vii. 1, 2. 

|( Matt xviii. 6. ‘But whoso shall offend one of those little ones 
which believe in n>e, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged 
about his neck, and that he were cast into the sea.’ The latter part of 
the passage in Clement agrees more exactly with Luke xvii. 2; ‘ It were 
better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast 
into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.’ 

G 



74 Paley^s View of the 

words of the Lord Jesus;—by this command, and by these rules, let 
us establish ourselves, that we may always walk obediently to his 
holy words.’ We perceive also in Clement a total unconsciousness 
of doubt, whether these were the real words of Christ, which are 
read as such in the Gospels. This observation indeed belongs to 
the whole series of testimony, and especially to the most ancient 
part of it. Whenever any thing now read in the Gospels, is met 
with in an early Christian writing, it is always observed to stand 
there as acknowledged truth, i. e. to be introduced without hesita¬ 
tion, doubt, or apology. It is to be observed also, that as this epistle 
was written in the name of the church of Rome, and addressed to 
the church of Corinth, it ought to be taken as exhibiting the judg¬ 
ment not only of Clement, who drew up the letter, but of these 
churches themselves, at least as to the authority of the books re¬ 
ferred to. 

It may be said, that, as Clement has not used words of quotation, 
it is not certain that he refers to any book whatever. The words 
of Christ, which he has put down, he might himself have heard 
from the apostles, or might have received through the ordinary 
medium of oral tradition. This has been said: but that no such 
inference can be drawn from the absence of words of quotation, is 
proved by the three following considerations :—First, that Clement, 
in the very same manner, namely, without any mark of reference, 
uses a passage now found in the Epistle to the Romans which 
passage, from the peculiarity of the words which compose it, and 
from their order, it is manifest that he must have taken from the 
book. The same remark may be repeated of some very singular 
sentiments in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Secondly, that there are 
many sentences of Saint Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians 
standing in Clement’s'epistle without any sign of quotation, which 
yet certainly are quotations; because it appears that Clement had 
Saint Paul’s epistle before him, inasmuch as in one place he men¬ 
tions it in terms too express to leave us in any doubt:—‘Take into 
your hands the epistle of the blessed apostle Paul.’ Thirdly, that 
this method of adopting words of Scripture without reference to ac¬ 
knowledgment, was, as will appear in the sequel, a method in 
general use amongst the most ancient Christian writers. These 
analogies not only repel the objection, but cast the presumption on 
the other side, and afford a considerable degree of positivt' proof, 
that the words in question have been borrowed from the places of 
Scripture in which we now find them. 

But take it if you will the other way, that Clement had heard 
these words from the apostles or first teachers of Christianity; with 
respect to the precise point of our argument, viz. that the Scriptures 
contain what the apostles taught, this supposition may serve almost 
as well. 

III. Near the conclusion of the Epistle to the Romans, Saint Paul, 


* Romans i. 29. 



Evidences of Christianity. 75 

amongst others, sends the following salutation: ‘ Salute Asyncrilus, 
Phlegon, Hernias, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are 
with them.’ 

Of Hermas, who appears in this catalogue of Roman Christians as 
contemporaiY vvith Saint Paul, a book bearing the name, and it is 
most probable rightly, is still remaining. It is called the Shepherd* 
or Pastor of Hermas. Its antiquity is incontestable, from the quota¬ 
tions of it in Ireneeus, a. d. 178; Clement of Alexandria, a. d. 194; 
Tertulhan, a. d. 200; (Vigen, a. d. 230. The notes of time extant 
in the epistle itself, agree with its title, and with the testimonies 
concerning it, for it purports to have been written during the life¬ 
time of Clement 

In this piece are tacit allusions to Saint Matthew’s, Saint Luke's, 
and Saint John’s Gospels; that is to say, there are applications of 
thoughts and expressions found in these Gospels, without citing the 
place or writer from which they were taken. In this form appear 
in Hermas the confessing and denying of Christ ,*t the parable of 
the seed sown ;t the comparison of Christ’s disciples to little chil¬ 
dren ; the saying, ‘He that putteth away his wife and marrieth an¬ 
other, committeth adultery;’$ the singular expression, ‘having re- 
ceiyed all power from his Father,’ in probable allusion to Matt, 
xxviii. 18; and Christ being the ‘gate,’ or only way of coming ‘to 
God,’ in plain allusion to John xiv. 6. x. 7.' 9. There is also a proba¬ 
ble allusion to Acts v. 32. 

This piece is the representation of a vision, and has by many been 
accounted a weak and fanciful performance. I therefore observe, 
that the character of the writing has little to do with the purpose 
for which we adduce it. It is the age in which it was composed, 
that gives the value to its testimony. 

IV. Ignatius, as it is testified by ancient Christian writers, became 
bishop of Antioch about thirty-seven years after Christ’s ascension ; 
and therefore, from his time, and place, and station, it is probable 
that he had known and conversed with many of the apostles. Epis¬ 
tles of Ignatius are referred to by Polycarp, his contemporary. Pas¬ 
sages found in the epistles now extant under his name, are quoted 
by Irenaeus, a. d. 178; by Origen, a. d. 230; and the occasion of 
writing the epistles is given at large by Eusebius and Jerome. V^at 
are called the smaller epistles of Ignatius, are generally deemed to 
be those which were read by Irenaesus, Origen, and Eusebius.H 

In these epistles are various undoubted allusions to the Gospels 
of Saint Matthew and Saint John; yet so far of the same form with 
those in the preceding articles, that, like them, they are not accom¬ 
panied with marks of quotation. 

Of these allusions the following are clear specimens: 


* Lardner.Cred. vol. i. p. 111. 
t Matt. X. 33. or, Luke xii. 8, 9. 

I Matt. xiii. 3. or, Luke viii. 5. § Luke xvi. 18. 

n Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 147. 




76 


Paley^s View of the 


Matt.* 


Joftn.t 


■ * Chnst was baptized of John, that all righteousness might 

he fulfilled by him.' 

‘ Be ye wise as serpents in all things, and harmless as a 
dove.' 

* ‘ Yet the Spirit is not deceived, being from God; for it 

knows whence it comes, and whither it goes.' 

‘ He (Christ) is the door of the Father, by which enter in 
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the apostles, and the 
^church.’ 

As to the manner of quotation, this is observable:—Ignatius, in 
one place, speaks of Saint Paul in terms of high respect, and quotes 
his Epistle to the Ephesians by name; yet, in several other places, he 
borrows words and sentiments from the same epistle without men¬ 
tioning it; which shows, that this was his general manner of using 
and applying writings then extant, and then of high authority. 

V. Polycarpl had been taught by the apostles; had conversed 
with many who had seen Christ; was also by the apostles appointed 
bishop of Smyrna. This testimony concerning Polycarp is given by 
Ireneeus, who in his youth had seen him:—‘I can tell the place (saitn 
IrenoBus) in which the blessed Polycarp sat and taught, and his going 
out and coming in, and the manner of his life, and the form of his 

f ierson, and the discourses he made to the people, and how he re- 
ated his conversation with John, and others who had seen the Lord, 
and how he related their sayings, and what he had heard concern¬ 
ing the Lord, both concerning his miracles and his doctrine, as he 
had received them from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life ; all 
which Polycarp related agreeable to the Scriptures.’ 

Of Polycarp, whose proximity to the age and country and persons 
of the apostles is thus attested, we have one undoubted epistle re¬ 
maining. And this, though a short letter, contains nearly forty clear 
allusions to the books of the New Testament; which is strong evi¬ 
dence of the respect which Christians of that age bore for these 
books. 

Amongst these, although the writings of Saint Paul are more fre¬ 
quently used by Polycarp than any other parts of Scripture, there 
are copious allusions to the Gospel of Saint Matthew, some to pas¬ 
sages found in the Gospels both of Matthew and Luke, and some 
which more nearly resemble the words in Luke. 

I select the following, as fixing the authority of the Lord’s prayer, 
and the use of it amongst the primitive Christians: ‘ If therefore we 
pray the Lord, that he will forgive us, we ought also to forgive.' 

‘ With supplication beseeching the all-seeing God not to lead us into 
temptation.' 


* Chap. iii. 15. ‘ For thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.’— 
Chap. X. 16 ‘ Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.’ 

t Chap. iii. 8. ‘.The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest 
the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence itconieth and whither it goeth; 
so is every one that is born of the Spirit.’ 

Chap. X. 9. ‘I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved.’ 
J Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 192. 




Evidences of Christianity. 77 

And the following, for the sake of repeating an observation 
already made, that words of our Lord, found in our Gospels, were 
at this early day quoted as spoken by him; and not only so, but 
quoted with so little question or consciousness of doubt about their 
being really his words, as not even to mention, much less to can¬ 
vass, the authority from which they were taken: 

‘ But remembering what the Lord said, teaching, Judge not, that 
ye be not judged; forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; be ye merci¬ 
ful, that ye may obtain mercy; with what measure ye mete, it shall 
be measured to you again.’* 

Supposing Polycarp to have had these words from the books in 
W’hich we now find them, it is manifest that these books were con¬ 
sidered by him, and, as he thought, considered by his readers, as 
authentic accounts of Christ’s discourses: and that that point was 
incontestable. 

The fiillowing is a decisive, though what we call a tacit, refer¬ 
ence to Saint Peter’s speech in the Acts of the Apostles :—‘ whom 
God hath raised, having loosed the pains of death.’t 

VI. Papias,t a hearer of John, and companion of Polycarp, as Ire- 
nsBus attests, and of that age, as all agree, in a passage quoted by 
Eusebius, from a work now lost, expressly ascribes the respective 
Gospels to Matthew and Mark; and in a manner which proves that 
these Gospels must have publicly borne the names of these authors 
at that time, and probably long before; for Papias does not say that 
one Gospel was written by Matthew, and another by Mark; but, 
assuming this as perfectly well known, he tells us from what mate¬ 
rials Mark collected his account, viz. from Peter’s preaching, and in 
what language Matthew wrote, viz. in Hebrew. Whether Papias 
was well informed in this statement, or not; to the point for which 
I produce this testimony, namely, that these books bore these names 
at this time, his authority is complete. 

The writers hitherto alleged, had all lived and conversed with 
some of the apostles. The works of theirs which remain, are in 
general very short pieces, yet rendered extremely valuable by their 
antiquity; and none, short as they are, but what contain some im¬ 
portant testimony to our historical Scriptures.§ 


* Matt. vii. 1,2. v. 7; Luke vi. 37, 38. f Acts ii. 24. 

J Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 239. 

§ That the quotations are more thinly strown in these, than in the 
writings of the next and of succeeding ages, is in a good measure ac¬ 
counted for by the observation, that the Scriptures of the New Testament 
had not yet, nor by their recency hardly could have, become a general 
part of Christian education ; read as the Old Testament was by the Jews 
and Christians from their childhood, and thereby intimately mixing, as 
that had long done, with all their religious ideas, and with their language 
upon religious subjects. In process of time, and as soon perhaps as could 
be expected, this came to be the case. And then we perceive the effect, 
in a proportionably greater frequency, as well as copiousness, of allu¬ 
sion.]/ 

G 2 


(I Micti. tntrod. c. ii. sect. vi. 



78 Paley’s View of the 

VII. Not long after these, that is, not much more than twenty 
years after the last, follows Justin Martyr.* His remaining works 
are much larger than any that have yet been noticed. Although 
the nature of his two principal writings, one of which was addressed 
to heathens, and the other was a conference with a Jew, did not 
lead him to such frequent appeals to Christian books as would have 
appeared in a discourse intended for Christian readers; we never¬ 
theless reckon up in them between tw'enty and thirty quotations of 
the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, certain, distinct, and copious s 
if each verse be counted separately, a much greater number; if 
each expression, a very great one.t 

We meet with quotations of three of the Gospels within the com¬ 
pass of half a page : ‘ And in other words he says. Depart from me 
into outer darkness, which the Father hath prepared for Satan and 
his angels,’ (which is from Matthew xxv. 41.) ‘ And again he said 

in other words, I give unto you power to tread upon serpents, and 
scorpions, and venomous beasts, and upon all the power of the 
enemy.’ (This from Luke x. 19.) ‘ And before he was crucified, he 
said, I'he Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of 
the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and rise again on the 
third day.’ (This from Mark viii. 31.) 

In another place, Justin quotes a passage in the history of Christ’s 
birth, as delivered by Matthew and John, and fortifies his quotation 
by this remarkable testimony: ‘ As they have taught, who have 
written the history of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ: 
and we believe them.’ 

Quotations are also found from the Gospel of Saint John. 

What, moreover, seems extremely material to be observed is, that 
in all Justin’s works, from which might be extracted almost a com- 
]iluto life of Christ, there are but two instances, in which he refers 
lo any thing as said or done by Christ, which is not related concern¬ 
ing him in our present Gospels: which show's, that these Gospels, 
and these, we may say, alone, were the authorities from w'hich the 
Christians of that day drew the information upon which they de¬ 
pended. One of these instances is of a saying of Christ, not met 
with in any book now extantj The other, of a circumstance in 


* Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 258. 

t ‘He cites our present canon, and particularly our four Gospels, con¬ 
tinually, I dare say, above two hundred times.’—Jones's New and Full 
Method. Append, vol. i. p. 589. ed. 17‘i6. 

J ‘ Wherefore also our Lord Jesus Christ has said. In whatsoever I 
shall find you, in the same I will also judge you.’ Possibly Justin de¬ 
signed not to quote any text, but to represent the sense of many of our 
Lord’s sayings. Fabricius has observed, that this saying has been quoted 
by many writers, and tliat Justin is the only one W'bo ascribes it to our 
Lord, and that perhaps by a slip of his memory. 

‘Words resembling these are read repeatedly in Ezekiel; ‘I will judge 
them according to their ways;’ chap. vii. 3. xxxiii. 20. It is remarkable 
that Justin had just before e.xpressiy quoted Ezekiel. Mr. Jones upon 
this circumstance founded a conjecture, that Justin wrote only ‘tire Lord 



Evidences of Christianity. 79 

Christ’s baptism, namely, a fie^ or luminous appearance upon the 
water, which, according to Epiphanius, is noticed in the Gospel of 
the Hebrews : and which might be true: but which, whether true 
or false, is mentioned by Justin, with a plain mark of diminution 
when compared with what he quotes as resting upon Scripture au¬ 
thority. The reader will advert to this distinction: ‘And then, 
when Jesus came to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, as 
Jesus descended into the water, a fire also was lundled in Jordan; 
end when he came up out of the water, the apostles of this our 
Christ have written that the Holy Ghost lighted upon him as a dove. 

All the references in Justin are made without mentioning the 
author; which proves that these books were perfectly notorious, 
and that there were no other accounts of Christ then extant, or, at 
least, no others so received and credited, as to make it necessary to 
distinguish these from the rest. 

But although Justin mentions not the author’s name, he calls the 
books, ‘Memoirs composed by the Apostles;’ ‘Memoirs composed 
by the Apostles and their Companions;’ which descriptions, the 
latter especially, exactly suit with the titles which the Gospels and 
Acts of the Apostles now bear. 

VIII. Hegesippus* * came aliout thirty years after Justin. His tes¬ 
timony is remarkable only for this particular; that he relates of him¬ 
self, that travelling from Palestine to Rome, he visited, on his jour¬ 
ney, many bishops; and that ‘ in every succession, and in every 
city, the same doctrine is taught, which the Law, and the Prophets, 
and the Lord teacheth.’ This is an important attestation, from good 
authority, and of high antiquity. It is generally understood that by 
the word ‘ Lord,’Hegesippus intended some writing or writings, com 
taining the teaching of Christ, in which sense alone the term combines 
with the other terms ‘ Law and Prophets,’ which denote writings ; 
and, together with them, admit of the verb ‘teacheth’ in the present 
tense. Then, that these writings were some or all of the books of 
the New Testament, is rendered probable from hence, that in the 
fragments of his works, which are preserved in Eusebius, and in a 
writer of the ninth century, enough, though it be little, is left to 
show, that Hegesippus expressed divers things in the style of the 
Gospels, and of the Acts of the Apostles; that he referred to the his¬ 
tory in the second chapter of Matthew, and recited a text of that 
Gospel as spoken by our Lord. 

IX. At this time, viz. about the year 170, the churches of Lyons 
and Vienne, in France, sent a relation of the sufferings of their 
martyrs to the churches of Asia and Phrygia.t The epistle is pre¬ 
served entire by Eusebius. And what carries in some measure the 
testimony of these churches to a higher age, is, that they had now 


hath said,’ intending to quote the words of God, or rather the sense of 
those words, in Ezekiel; and that some transcriber, imagining these to 
be the words of Christ, inserted in his copy the addition ‘ Jesus Christ. 
Vol. i. p. 539. 

* Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 314. t Ibid. p. 332. 



80 


Paley^s View of the 

for their bishop, Pothinus, who was ninety yeai’s old, and whose 
early life consequently must have immediately joined on with the 
times of the apostles. In this epistle are exact references to the 
Gospel of Luke and John, and to the Acts of the Apostles; the form 
of reference the same as in all the preceding articles. That from. 
Saint John is in these words: ‘ Then was fulfilled that which was 
spoken by the Lord, that whosoever killeth you, will think that he 
doth God service.’* 

X. The evidence now opens upon us full and clear. Irenasust 
succeeded Pothinus as bishop of Lyons. In his youth he had been 
a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. In the time 
in which he lived, he was distant not much more than a century 
from the publication of the Gospels; in his instruction, only Iw one 
step separated from the persons of the apostles. He asserts of him- 
elf and his contemporaries, that they were able to reckon up, in all 
the principal churches, the succession of bishops from the first.f I 
remark these particulars concerning Irenaeus with more formality 
than usual; because the testimony which this writer affords to the 
historical books of the New Testament, to their authority, and to 
the titles which they bear, is express, positive, and exclusive. One 
principal passage, in which this testimony is contained, opens with 
a precise assertion of the point which we have laid down as the 
foundation of our argument, viz. that the story which the Gospels 
exhibit, is the story which the apostles told. ‘ We have not received,’ 
saith Irensus, ‘ the knowledge of the way of our salvation by any 
others than those by whom the gospel has been brought to us. 
Which Gospel they first preached, and afterward, by the will of 
God, committed to writing, that it might be for time to come the 
foundation and pillar of our faith. For after that our Lord rose from 
the dead, and they (the apostles) were endowed from above with 
the power of the Holy Ghost coming down upon them, they re¬ 
ceived a perfect knowledge of all things. They then went forth to 
all the ends of the earth, declaring to men the blessing of heavenly 
peace, having all of them, and every one, alike, the Gospel of God. 
Matthew then, among the Jews, wrote a Gospel in their own lan¬ 
guage, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospe,l at Rome, 
and founding a church there: and after their exit, Mark also, the 
disciple and interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in wanting the 
things that had been preached by Peter; and Luke, the companion 
of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him (Paul). 
Afterward John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his 
breast, he likewise published a Gospel while he dwelt at Ephesus 
in Asia.’ If any modern divine should write a book upon the 
genuineness of the Gospels, he could not assert it more expressly, or 
state their original more distinctly, than Irenaeus hath done within 
little more than a hundred years after they were published. 

The correspondency, in the days of Irenaeus, of the oral and 


* John xvi. 2. 

J Adv. Hffires. 1. iii. c. 3, 


t Lardner, vol. i. p. 344. 



Evidences of Christianity. 81 

■ivritten tradition, and the deduction of the oral tradition through 
various channels from the age of the apostles, which was then lately 
passed, and, by consequence, the probability that the books truly 
delivered what the apostles taught, is inferred also with strict regu¬ 
larity from another passage of his works. ‘The tradition of the 
apostles,’ this father saith, ‘ hath spread itself over the whole uni¬ 
verse ; and all they, who search after the sources of truth, will find 
this tradition to be held sacred in every church. We might enu¬ 
merate all those who have been appointed bishops to these churches 
by the apostles, and all their successors up to our days. It is by this 
uninterrupted succession that we have received the tradition which 
actually exists in the church, as also the doctrines of truth, as it was 
preached by the apostles.’* The reader will observe upon this, that 
the same Irenaeus, who is now stating the strength and uniformity 
of the tradition, we have before seen recognizing, in the fullest 
manner, the authority of the written records; from which we are 
entitled to conclude, that they were then conformable to each other. 

I have said, that the testimony of Irenmus in favor of our Gospels 
is exclusive of all others. 1 allude to a remarkable passage in his 
works, in which, for some reasons sufficiently fanciful, he endeavors 
to show, that there could be neither more nor fewer Gospels than 
four. With his argument we have no concern. The position itself 
proves that four, and only four. Gospels were at that time publicly 
read and acknowledged. That these were our Gospels, and in the 
state in which we now’ have them, is shown, from many other places 
of this writer beside that which we have already alleged. He 
mentions how Matthew begins his Gospel, how Mark begins and 
ends his, and their supposed reasons for so doing. He enumerates 
at length the several passages of Christ’s history in Luke, which are 
not found in any of the other evangelists. He states the particular 
design with w’hich Saint John composed his Gospel, and accounts 
for the doctrinal declarations which precede the narrative. 

To the book of the Acts of the Apostles, its author, and credit, 
the testimony of Irenseus is not less explicit. Referring to the ac¬ 
count of Saint Paul’s conversion and vocation, in the ninth chapter 
of that book, ‘Nor can they,’ says he, meaning the parties with 
whom he argues, ‘ show that he is not to be credited, who has re¬ 
lated to us the truth with the greatest exactness.’ In another place, 
he has actually collected the several texts, in which the writer of 
the history is represented as accompanying Saint Paul; which 
leads him to deliver a summary of almost the whole of the last 
twelve chapters of the book. 

In an author thus abounding with references and allusions to the 
Scriptures, there is not one to any apocryphal Christian writing 
whatever. This is a broad line of distinction between our sacred 
books, and the pretensions of all others. 

The force of the testimony of the period which we have consid¬ 
ered, is greatly strengthened by the observation, that it is the testi- 


* Iren, in Haer. 1. iii. c. 3. 



82 Paletfs View of the 

raony, and the concurring testimony, of writers who lived in coun¬ 
tries remote from one another. Clement flourished at Rome, Igna¬ 
tius at Antioch, Polycarp at Smyrna, Justin Martyr in Syria, and 
Irenaeus in France. 

XI. Omitting Athenagoras and Theophilas, who lived about this 
time ;* in the remaining worjks of the former of whom are clear 
references to Mark and Luke; and in the works of the latter, who 
was bishop of Antioch, the sixth in succession from the apostles, 
evident allusions to Matthew and John, and probable allusions to 
Luke (which, considering the nature of the compositions, that they 
were addressed to heathen readers, is as much as could be expected); 
observing also, that the works of two learned Christian writers of 
the same age, Miltiades and Pantaenus,! are now lost; of which 
Miltiades, Eusebius records, that his writings ‘ were monuments of 
zeal for the divine oracles;’ and which Pantaenus, as Jerome testi¬ 
fies, was a man of prudence and learning, both in the divine Scrip¬ 
tures and secular literature, and had left many commentaries upon 
the Holy Scriptures then extant; passing by these without farther 
remark, we come to one of the most voluminous of ancient Chris¬ 
tian writers, Clement of Alexandria.!: Clement followed Irenasus 
at the distance of only sixteen years, and therefore may be said to 
maintain the series of testimony in an uninterrupted continuation. 

In certain of Clement’s works, now lost, but of which various 
parts are recited by Eusebius, there is given a distinct account 
of the order in which the four Gospels were written. The Gospels 
which contain the genealogies, were (he says) written first; Mark’s 
next, at the instance of Peter’s followers; and John’s the last: and 
this account he tells us that he had received from presbyters of 
more ancient times. This testimony proves the following points 
that these Gospels were the histories of Christ then publicly re 
ceived, and relied upon; and that the dates, occasions, and circum¬ 
stances, of their publication, were at that time subjects of attention 
and inquiry amongst Christians. In the works of Clement which 
remain, the four Gospels are repeatedly quoted by the names of 
their authors, and the Acts of the Apostles is expressly ascribed to 
Luke. In one place, after mentioning a particular circumstance, 
he adds these remarkable words: ‘ We have not this passage in the 
four Gospels delivered to us, but in that according to the Egyptians;’ 
which puts a marked distinction between the four Gospels and all 
other histories, or pretended histories, of Christ. In another part of 
his works, the perfect confidence with which he received the Gos¬ 
pels, is signified by these words: ‘That this is true, appears from 
hence, that it was written in the Gospel according to Saint Luke;’ 
and again, ‘ I need not iise many words, but only to allege the evan¬ 
gelic voice of the Lord.’ His quotations are numerous. The say¬ 
ings of Christ, of which he alleges many, are all taken from our 


* Lardner, vol. i. p. 400—422. 
t Ibid. vol. ii. p. 469. 


t Ibid. vol. i. p. 413. 450. 



Evidences oj Christianity, 83 

Gospels; the single exception to this observation appearing to be a 
loose* quotation of a passage in Saint Matthew’s Gospel. ° 

XJI. In the age in which they lived,t Tertullian joins on with 
Clement. The number of the Gospels then received, the names of 
the evangelists, and their proper descriptions, are exhibited by this 
writer in one short sentenceAmong the apostles, John and 
Matthew teach us the faith; among apostolical men, Luke and 
Mark refresh it’ The next passage to be taken from Tertullian, 
aflbrds as complete an attestation to the authenticity of our books, 
as can be well imagined. After enumerating the churches which 
had been founded by Paul, at Corinth, in Galatia, at Philippi, Thes- 
salonica, and Ephesus; the church of Rome established by Peter 
and Paul, and other churches derived from John ; he proceeds thus: 
—‘ I say then, that with them, but not with them only which are 
apostolical, but with all who have fellowship with them in the 
same faith, is that Gospel of Luke received from its first publication, 
which we so zealously maintainand presently afterward adds ; 
‘ The same authority of the apostolical churches will support the 
other Gospels, which we have from them and according to them, I 
mean John’s and Matthew’s; although that likewise which Mark 
published may be said to be Peter’s, whose interpreter Mark was.’ 
In another place Tertullian affirms, that the three other Gospels 
were in the hands of the churches from the beginning, as well as 
Luke’s. This noble testimony fixes the universality with which 
the Gospels were received, and their antiquity; that they were in 
the hands of all, and had been so from the first. And this evidence 
appears not more than one hundred and fifty years after the publi¬ 
cation of the books. The reader must be given to understand, that 
when Tertullian speaks of maintaining or defending {tuendi) the 
Gospel of Saint Luke, he only means maintaining or defending the 
integrity of the copies of Luke received by Christian churches, in 
opposition to certain curtailed copies used by Marcion, against 
whom he writes. 

This author frequently cites the Acts of the Apostles under that 
title, once calls it Luke’s Commentary, and observes how Saint 
Paul’s epistles confirm it. 

After this general evidence, it is unnecessary to add particular 
quotations. These, however, are so numerous and ample, as to 
have led Dr. Lardner to observe, ‘ that there are more, and larger 
quotations of the small volume of the JMew Testament in this one 


* ‘ Ask great things, and the small shall be added unto you.’ Clement 
rather chose to expound the words of Matthew (chap. vi. 33.) than lite¬ 
rally to cite them; and this is most undeniably proved by another place 
in the same Clement, where he both produces the text and these words as 
an exposition ;—‘ Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and its righteous¬ 
ness, for these are the great things : but the small things, and things re¬ 
lating to this life, shall be added unto you.’ Jones’s New and Full 
Method, vol. i. p. 5.i3. 
t Lardner, vol. ii. p. 551. 



84 


Paley's View of the 

Christian author, than there are of all the works of Cicero in writers 
of all characters for several ages.’* 

Tertullian quotes no Christian writing as of equal authority with 
the Scriptures, and no spurious books at all; a broad line of dis¬ 
tinction, we may once more observe, between our sacred books and 
all others. 

We may again likewise remark the wide extent through which 
the reputation of the Gospels, and of the Acts of the Apostles, had 
spread, and the perfect consent, in this point, of distant and inde¬ 
pendent societies. It is now only about one hundred and fifty 
years since Christ was crucified; and within this period, to say 
nothing of the apostolical fathers who have been noticed already, 
we have Justin Martyr at Neapolis, Theophilus at Antioch, Irenasus 
in France, Clemen-t at Alexandria, Tertullian at Carthage, quoting 
the same books of historical Scriptures, and, I may say, quoting 
these alone. 

XIII. An interval of only thirty years, and that occupied by no 
small number of Christian writers,t whose works only remain in 
fragments and quotations, and in every one of which is some refer¬ 
ence or other to the Gospels (and in one of them, Hippolytus, as 
preserved in Theodoret, is an abstract of the whole Gospel history), 
brings us to a name of great celebrity in Christian antiquity, Origeni 
of Alexandria, who, in the quantity of his writings, exceeded the 
most laborious of the Greek and Latin authors. Nothing can be 
more peremptory upon the subject now under consideration, and 
from a writer of his learning and information, more satisfactory, 
than the declaration of Origen, preserved, in an extract from his 
works, by Eusebius; ‘ That the four Gospels alone are received 
without dispute by the whole church of God under heavento 
which declaration is immediately subjoined, a brief history of the 
respective authors, to whom they were then, as they are now, as¬ 
cribed. The language holden concerning the Gospels, throughout 
the works of Origen which remain, entirely correspond with the 
testimony here cited. His attestation to the Acts of the Apostles is 
no less positive: ‘ And Luke also once more sounds the trumpet, 
relating the acts of the apostles.’ The universality with xvhich the 
Scriptures were then read, is well signified by this writer, in a pas¬ 
sage in which he has occasion to observe against Celsus, ‘ That it 
is not in any private books, or such as are read by a few only, and 
those studious persons, but in books read by every body, that it is 
written. The invisible things of God from the creation of the world 
are clearly seen, being understood by things that are made.’ It is 
to no purpose to single out quotations of Scripture from such a 
writer as this. We might as well make a selection of the quota¬ 
tions of Scripture in Dr. Clarke’s Sermons. They are so thickly 


* Lardner, vol. ii. p. 647. 

t Minucius Felix, Apollonius, Caius, Asterius, Urbanus, Alexander 
bishop of Jerusalem, Hippolytus, Ammonius, Julius Africanus. 

I Lardner, vol. il. p. 23L 



Evidences of Christianity. 85 

so^vn in the works of Origen, that Dr. Mill says, ‘If we had all his 
w orks remaining, we should have before us almost the whole text 
ol the Bible.’"*' 

Origen notices, in order to censure, certain apocryphal Gospels. 
He also uses four writings of this sort; that is, throughout his large 
w^orks he once or twice, at the most, quotes each of the four; but 
always with some mark, either of direct reprobation or of caution 
to his readers, manifestly es.eeming them of little or no authority. 

XIV. Gregory bishop of Neocaesarea, and Dionysius of Alexan¬ 
dria, were scholars of Origen. Their testimony, therefore, though 
full and particular, may be reckoned a repetition only of his. The 
series, however, of evidence is continued by Cyprian bishop of Car¬ 
thage, who flourished within tw^enty years after Origen. ‘The 
church,’ says this father, ‘ is watered, like Paradise, by four rivers, 
that is, by four Gospels.’ The Acts of the Apostles is also frequently 
quoted by Cyprian under that name, and the name of the ‘Divine 
Scriptures.’ In his various writings are such constant and copious 
citations of Scripture, as to place this part of the testimony beyond 
conlrovef'sy. Nor is there, in the works of this eminent African 
bishop, one quotation of a spurious or apocryphal Christian writing. 

XV. Passing over a crowdt of writers following Cyprian at differ¬ 
ent distances, but all within forty years of his time; and who all, in 
the imperfect remains of their works, either cite the historical Scrip¬ 
tures of the New Testament, or speak of them in terms of profound 
respect; I single out Victorin, bishop of Pettaw in Germany, merely 
on account of the remoteness of his situation from that of Origen 
and Cyprian, who w^ere Africans; by which circumstance his testi¬ 
mony, taken in conjunction with theirs, prove that the Scripture his¬ 
tories, and the same histories, were known and received from one 
side of the Christian world to the other. This bishopf lived about 
the year 290: and in a commentary upon this text of the Revelation, 
‘ The first was like a lion, the second w'as like a calf, the third like 
a man, and the fourth like a flying eagle,’ he makes out that by the 
four creatures are intended the four Gospels; and, to show the pro¬ 
priety of the symbols, he recites the subject with which each evan¬ 
gelist opens his history. The explication is fanciful, but the testi¬ 
mony positive. He also expressly cites the Acts of the Apostles. 

XVI. Arnobius and Lactantius,$ about the year 300, compose 
formal arguments upon the credibility of the Cnristian religion. As 
these arguments were addressed to Gentiles, the authors abstain 
from quoting Christian books hy name; one of them giving this very 
reason for his reserve; but when th^ come to state for the informa¬ 
tion of their readers, the outlines of Christ’s history, it is apparent 


* Mill, Proleg. cap. vi. p.66. 

t Novatus, Rome, A. D. 251; Dionysius, Rome, A. D. 259; Commodian, 
A. D. 270; Anatolius, Laodicea, A. D. 270; Theognostus, A. D. 282; Me¬ 
thodius, Lycia, A. D. 29J0; Phileas, Egypt, A. D. 226. 

I Lardner, vol. v. p. 214. § Ibid. vol. vii. p. 43.201. 



86 Paley's Vieio of the 

that they draw their accounts from our Gospels, and from no other 
sources; for these statements exhibit a summary of almost every 
thing which is related of Christ’s actions and miracles by the four 
evangelists. Arnobius vindicates, without mentioning their names, 
the credit of these historians; observing, that they were eye-wit¬ 
nesses of the facts which they relate, and that their ignorance of the 
arts of composition was rather a confirmation of their testimony, 
than an objection to it. Lactantius also argues in defence of the 
religion, from the consistency, simplicity, disinterestedness, and suf¬ 
ferings of the Christian historians, meaning by that term our evan¬ 
gelists. 

XVII. We close the series of testimonies with that of Eusebius,* 
bishop of Caesarea, who flourished in the year 315, contemporary 
with, or posterior only by fifteen years to, the two authors last cited. 
This voluminous writer, and most diligent collector of the writings 
of others, beside a variety of large works, composed a history of the 
affairs of Christianity from its origin to his own time. His testimony 
to the Scriptures is the testimony of a man much conversant in the 
works of Christian authors, written during the first three centuries 
of its era, and who had read many which are now lost. In a pas¬ 
sage of his Evangelical Demonstration, Eusebius remarks, with 
great nicety, the delicacy of two of the evangelists, in their manner 
of noticing any circumstance which regarded themselves; and of 
Mark, as writing under Peter’s direction, in the circumstances which 
regarded him. The illustration of this remark leads him to bring 
together long quotations from each of the evangelists; and the whole 
passage is a proof, that Eusebius, and the Christians of those days, 
not only read the Gospels, but studied them with attention and 
exactness. In a passage of his Ecclesiastical History, he treats, in 
form, and at large, of the occasions of writing the four Gospels, and 
of the order in which they w^ere written. 'The title of the chapter 
is, ‘ Of the Order of the Gospels;’ and it begins thus: ‘ Let us ob¬ 
serve the writings of this apostle John, which are not contradicted 
by any: and, first of all, must be mentioned, as acknowledged by 
all, the Gospel according to him, w'ell known to all the churches 
under heaven; and that it has been justly placed by the ancients 
the fourth in order, and after the other three, may be made evident 
in this manner.’—Eusebius then proceeds to show that John wrote 
the last of the four, and that his Gospel was intended to supply the 
omissions of the others; especially in the part of our Lord’s ministry, 
which took place before the imprisonment of John the Baptist. He 
observes, ‘ that the apostles of Christ were not studious of the orna¬ 
ments of composition, nor indeed forward to write at all, being 
wholly occupied with their ministry.’ 

This learned author makes no use at all of Christian writings, 
forged with the names of Christ’s apostles, or their companions. 

We close this branch of our evidence here, because after Euse- 


* Lardner, vol. viii. p. 33. 



Evidences of Christianity. 87 

bius, there is no room for any question upon the subject; the works 
of Christian writers being as full of texts of Scripture and of refer¬ 
ences to Scripture, as the discourses of modern divines. Future 
testimonies to the books of Scripture could only prove, that they 
never lost their character or authority. 


SECT. II. 

When the Scriptures are quoted, or alluded to, they are quoted with 
peculiar respect, as books sui generis; as possessing an authority 
which belonged to no other books, and as conclusive in all questions 
and controversies amongst Christians. 

Beside the general strain of reference and quotation, which uni¬ 
formly and strongly indicates this distinction, the following may be 
regarded as specific testimonies: 

I. Theophilus* bishop of Antioch, the sixth in succession from the 
apostles, and who flourished little more than a century after the 
books of the New Testament were written, having occasion to quote 
one of our Gospels, writes thus: ‘ These things the Holy Scriptures 
teach us, and all who were moved by the Holy Spirit, among whom 
John says. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with 
God.’ Again: ‘ Concerning the righteousness which the law teaches, 
the like things are to be found in the Prophets and the Gospels. 
because that, being inspired, spoke by one and the same Spirit of 
God.’t No words can testify more strongly than these do, the high 
and peculiar respect in which these books were holden. 

II. A w'riter against Artemon,t who may be supposed to come 
about one hundred and fifty-eight years after the publication of the 
Scripture, in a passage quoted by Eusebius, uses these expressions : 
‘ Possibly what they (our adversaries) say, might have been credited, 
if first of all the Divine Scriptures did not contradict them; and 
then the writings of certain brethren more ancient than the times 
of Victor.’ The brethren mentioned by name, are Justin, Miltiades, 
Tatian, Clement, Irenseus, Melito, with a general appeal to many 
more not named. This passage proves, first, that there was at that 
time a collection called Divine Scriptures; secondly, that these 
Scriptures were esteemed of higher authority than the writings of 
the most early and c elebrated Christians. 

III. Jn a piece asc dbed to Hippolytus,$ who lived near the same 
time, the author processes, in giving his correspondent instruction in 
the things about wh.ch he inquires, ‘ to draw out of the sacredfoun¬ 
tain, and to set befcre him from the sacred Scriptures, what may 
afford him satisfaction.’ He then quotes immediately Paul’s epistles 
to Timothy, and afterw'ard many books of the New Testament. 


♦ Lardner, Cred part ii. vol. i. p. 429. 
I lb. vol. iii. p. 40. 


t Ib. vol. i. p. 448. 

§ Ib. vol. iii. p. 112. 



88 Paley's View of the 

This preface to the quotations carries in it a marked distinction be¬ 
tween the Scriptures and other books. 

IV. ‘ Our assertions and discourses (saith Origen*), are unworthy 
of credit; we must receive the Scriptures as witnesses.’ After treat¬ 
ing of the duty of prayer, he proceeds with his argument thus: 
‘ What we have said, may be proved from the Divine Scriptures.’ 
In his books againt Celsus, we find this passage : ‘That our religion 
teaches us to seek after wisdom shall be shown, both out of the an¬ 
cient Jewish Scriptures, which we also use, and out of those 'vvritten 
since Jesus, which are believed in the churches to be divine.’ 
These expressions afford abundant evidence of the peculiar and ex¬ 
clusive authority which the Scriptures possessed. 

V. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage,t whose age lies close to that of 
Origen, earnestly exhorts Christian teachers, in all doubtful cases, 
‘ to go back to the fountain; and, if the truth has in any case been 
shaken, to recur to the Gospels and apostolic writings.’—‘ The pre¬ 
cepts of the gospel (says he in another place), are nothing less 
than authoritative divine lessons, the foundations of our hope, the 
supports of our faith, the guides of our way, the safe-guards of our 
course to heavdn.’ 

VI. Novatus,t a Roman, contemporary with Cyprian, appeals to 
the Scriptures, as the authority Iw which all errors were to be re¬ 
pelled, and disputes decided. ‘ That Christ is not only man, but 
God also, is proved by the sacred authority of the Divine Writings.’ 
—‘ The Divine Scripture easily detects and confutes the frauds of 
heretics.’—‘ It is not by the fault of the heavenly Scriptures, which 
never deceive.’ Stronger assertions than these could not be used. 

VII. At the distance of twenty years from the writer last cited, 
Anatolius,§ a learned Alexandrian, and bishop of Laodicea, speak¬ 
ing of the rule for keeping Easter, a question at that day agitated 
with much earnestness, says of those whom he opposed, ‘ They can 
by no means prove their point by the authority of the divine Scrip¬ 
ture.’ 

VIII. The Arians, w’ho sprung up about fitly years after this, 
argued strenuously against the use of the words consubstantial, and 
«ssence, and like phrases; ‘ because they were not in Scripture.’\\ And 
in the same strain, one of their advocates opens a conference with 
Augustine, after the following manner: ‘ If you say what is reasona¬ 
ble, I must submit. If you allege any thing from the Divine Scrip¬ 
tures, which are common to both, I must hear. But unscriptural 
expressions (quae extra Scripturam sunt) deserve no regard.’ 

Athanasius, the great antagonist of Arianism, after having enu¬ 
merated the books of the Old and New Testament, adds, ‘ These are 
the fountain of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied Avith the 
oracles contained in them. In these alone the doctrine of salvation 


* Lardner, Cred. vol. iii. p. 287—2S9. t Ib. vol. iv. p. 840. 

I Ib. vol. v. p. 102. § Ib. p. 146. 

I Ib. vol. vii. p. 283,284. 



Evidences of Christianity. 89 

is proclaimed. Let no man add to them, or take any thiner from 
them.’'^ ° 

IX. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem,t who wrote about twenty years 
after the appearance of Arianism, uses these remarkable words: 
‘ Concerning the divine and holy mysteries of faith, not the least 
article ought to be delivered without the Divine Scriptures.’ We 
are assured that Cyril’s Scriptures were the same as ours, for he has 
left us a catalogue of the br.oks included under that name. 

X. Epiphanius,t twenty years after Cyril, challenges the Arians. 
and the followers of Origen, ‘to produce any passage of the Old and 
l\ew Testament, favoring their sentiments.’ 

XI. Phoebadius, a Gallic bishop, who lived about thirty years 
after the council of Nice, testifies, that ‘ the bishops of that coun- 
cil first consulted the sacred volumes, and then declared their 
faith.’§ 

XII. Basil, bishop of Cssarea, in Cappadocia, contemporary with 
Epiphanius, says, ‘ that hearers instruct/'d in the Scriptures ought to 
examine what is said by their teachers, and to embrace what is 
agreeable to the Scriptures, and to reject what is otherwise.’!! 

XIII. Ephraim, the Syrian, a celebrated writer of the same times, 
beam this conclusive testimony to the proposition which forms the 
subject of our present chapter: ‘The truth written in the sacred 
volume of the gospel, is a perfect rule. Nothing can be taken from 
It nor added to it, without great guilt.’! 

XIV. If we add Jerome to these, it is only for the evidence which 
he affords of the judgment of preceding ages. Jerome observes, 
concerning the quotations of ancient Christian writers, that is, of 
writers who were ancient in the year 400, that they made a distinc¬ 
tion between books; some they quoted as of authority, and others 
not: which observation relates to the books of Scripture, compared 
with other writings, apocryphal or heathen.** 


SECT. III. 

The Scriptures were in very early times collected into a distinct 
volume. 

Ignatius, who was bishop of Antioch within forty years after the 
Ascension, and who had hved and conversed with the apostles, 
speaks of the gospel and of the apostles in terms which render it 
very probable that he meant by the gospel, the book or volume of the 
Gospels, and by the Apostles, the book or volume of their epistles. 
His words in one place are,tt ‘ Fleeing to the gospel as the flesh of 
Jesus, and to the apostles as the presbytery of the church:’ that is, 


* Lardner, Cred. vol. xii. p. 182. 

I IIj. p. 314. 

II lb. p. 124. 

** Ib. vol. X. p. 123, 124. 


t Ib. vol. viii. p. 276. 

§ Ib. vol. ix. p. 52. 

V Ib. vol. ix. p. 222. 
ft Ib. part ii. vol. i. p. 180. 

H2 



90 Paley's View of the 

as Le Clare interprets them, ‘ in order to understand the will of God, 
he fled to the Gospels, which he believed no less than if Christ in 
the flesh had been speaking to him; and to the writings of the apos¬ 
tles, whom he esteemed as the presbytery of the whole Christian 
church.’ It must be observed, that a1x)ut eighty years after this, 
we have direct proof, in the writings of Clement of Alexandria,* 
that these two names, ‘ Gospel,’ and ‘ Apostles,’ were the names by 
which the writings of the New Testament, and the division of these 
writings, were usually expressed. 

Another passage from Ignatius is the following: ‘ But the gospel 
has somewhat in it more excellent, the appearance of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, his passion and resurrec'don.’t 

And a third: ‘ Ye ought to hearken to the prophets, but especially 
to the gospel, in which the passion has been manifested to us, and 
the resurrection perfected.’ In this last passage, the prophets and 
the gospel are put in conjunction; and as Ignatius undoubtedly 
meant by the prophets a collection of writings, it is probable that he 
meant the same by the gospel, the two terms standing in evident 
parallelism with each other. 

This interpretation of the word ‘ Gospel,’ in the passages above 
quoted from Ignatius, is confirmed by a piece of nearly equal an¬ 
tiquity, the relation of the martyrdom of Polycarp by the church of 
Smyrna. ‘All things (say they) that went before, were done, that the 
Lord might show us a martyrdom according to the gospel, for he 
expected to be delivered up as the Lord also did.’t And in another 
place, ‘ We do not commend those who offer themselves, lorasmuch 
as the gospel teaches us no such thing.’$ In both these places, what 
is called the Gospels, seems to be the history of Jesus Christ, and 
of his doctrine. 

If this be the true sense of the passages, they are not only evi¬ 
dences of our proposition, but strong and veiy ancient proofs of the 
high esteem in which the books of the New Testament were holden. 

II. Eusebius relates, that Quadratus and some others, who were 
the immediate successors of the apostles, travelling abroad to preach 
Christ, carried the Gospels with them, and delivered them to their 
converts. The words of Eusebius are: ‘ Then travelling abroad, 
they performed the work of evangelists, being ambitious to preach 
Christ, and deliver the Scripture of the divine GospelsJW Eusebius 
had before him the writings both of Quadratus himself, and of many 
others of that age, which are now lost. It is reasonable, therefore, 
to believe that he had good grounds for his assertion. What is thus 
recorded of the Gospels, took place within sixty, or at the most, sev¬ 
enty years after they were published: and it is evident, that they 
must, before this time (and, it is probable, long before this time), 
have been in general use, and in high esteem in the churches 
planted by the apostles, inasmuch as they were now, we find, col 


* Lardner, Cred. vol. ii. p 516. 

J Ignat. Ep. c. i. 

jj Lardner, Cred. part ii. vol. i. p.236. 


t Ib. part ii. vol. ii. p. 182. 
§ Ib. c. iv. 



Evidences of Christianity. 91 

lected into a volume; and the immediate successors of the apostles, 
they who preached the religion of Christ to those who had not 
already heard it, carried the volume with them, and delivered it to 
their converts. 

III. Irenasus, in the year 178,* puts the evangelic and apostolic 
writings in connexion with the Law and the Prophets, manifestly 
intending by the one a code or collection of Christian sacred writings, 
as the other expressed the code or collection of ^wish sacred 
writings. And, 

IV. Melito, at this time bishop of Sardis, writing to one Onesimus, 
tells his correspondent,t that he had procured an accurate account 
of the books of the Old Testament. The occurrence, in this pas¬ 
sage, of the term Old Testament, has been brought to prove, and it 
certainly does prove, that there was then a volume or collection of 
writings called the New Testament. 

V. In the time of Clement of Alexandria, about fifteen years after 
the last quoted testimony, it is apparent that the Christian Scriptures 
W'ere divided into parts, under the general titles of the Gospels and 
Apostles; and that both these were regarded as of the highest au¬ 
thority. One, out of many expressions of Clement, alluding to this 
distribution, is the following:—‘There is a consent and harmony 
between the Law and the Prophets, the Apostles and the Gospel.^ 

VI. The same division, ‘ Prophets, Gospels, and Apostles,’ appears 
in Tertullian,$ the contemporary of Clement. The collection of the 
Gospels is likewise called by this writer the ‘Evangelic Instru¬ 
ment ;’|| the whole volume, the ‘ New Testament;’ and the two parts, 
the‘Gospels and Apostles.’IT 

VII. From many writers also of the third century, and especially 
from Cyprian, who lived in the middle of it, it is collected, that the 
Christian Scriptures were divided into two codes or volumes, one 
called the ‘Gospels, or Scriptures of the Lord,’ the other, the ‘Apos¬ 
tles, or Epistles of the Apostles.’** 

VIII. Eusebius, as we have already seen, takes some pains to 
show, that the Gospel of St. John had been justly placed Iw the 
ancients ‘ the fourth in order, and after the other three.’tt These 
are the terms of his proposition: and the very introduction of such 
an argument proves incontestably, that the four Gospels had been 
collected into a volume, to the exclusion of every other; that their 
order in the volume had been adjusted with much consideration; 
and that this had been done by those who were called ancients in 
the time of Eusebius. 

In the Diocletian persecution, in the year 303, the Scriptures were 
sought out and burnt many suffered death rather than deliver 
them up; and those who betrayed them to the persecutors, were 
accounted as lapse and apostate. On the other hand, Constantine, 


* Lardner, Cred. part ii. vol. i. p. 383. 

I Ib. vol.ii.p. 516. §Ib. p. 631. 
irib. p. 632. ** Ib. vol. iv. p. 846. 

lb. vol. vii. p. 214, &c. 


t lb. p. 331. 

|( lb. p. 574. 

ft Ib. vol. viii. p. 90. 




92 


Paley's View of the 

after his conversion, gave directions for multiplying copies of the 
divine oracles, and for magnificently adorning them, at the expense 
of the imperial treasury.” What the Christians of that age so richly 
embellished in their prosperity, and which is more, so tenaciously 
preserved under persecution, was the very volume of the New Tes¬ 
tament which we now read. 


SECT. IV. 

Our present sacred writings were soon distinguished by appropriate 
names and titles of respect. 

Polycarp. ‘ I trust that ye are well exercised in the Holy Scrips 
tures ;—as in these Scriptures it is said, Be ye ang^ and sin not, 
and let not the sun go down upon your wrath.t TTiis passage is 
extremely important: because it proves that, in the time of Poly- 
carp, who had lived with the apostles, there were Christian writings 
distinguished by the name of ‘ Holy Scriptures,’ or Sacred Writings. 
Moreover, the text quoted by Polycarp is a text found in the collec¬ 
tion at this day. What also the same Polycarp hath elsewhere 
quoted in the same manner, may be considered as proved to belong 
to the collection; and this comprehends Saint Matthew’s, and prob¬ 
ably Saint Luke’s Gospel, the Acts of the Apostles, ten epistles of 
Paul, the First Epistle of Peter, and the First of John.J In another 
place. Polycarp has these words: ‘ Whoever perverts the oracles of 
the Lord to his own lusts, and says there is neither resurrection nor 
judgment, he is the first-bom of Satan.’$—It does not appear what 
else Polycarp could mean by the ‘ oracles of the Lord,’ but those 
same ‘ Holy Scriptures,’ or Sacred Writings, of which he had spoken 
before. 

II. Justin Martyr, whose apology was written about thirty years 
after Polycarp’s epistle, expressly cites some of our present histories 
under the title of Gospel, and that not as a name by him first as¬ 
cribed to them, but as the name by which they w'ere generally 
known in his time. His words are these‘ For the apostles in the 
memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus 
delivered it, that Jesus commanded them to take bread, and give 
thanks.’ll There exists no doubt, but that, by the memoirs above 
mentioned, Justin meant our present historical Scriptures ; for 
throughout his works he quotes these, and no others. 

III. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, who came thirty years after 
Justin, in a passage preserved in Eusebius (for his works are lost), 
speaks ‘ of the Scriptures of the Lord.’^ 

IV. And at the same time, or very nearly so, by Irenaeus bishop 


* Lardner, Cred. vol. vii. p 4:i2. 
t lb. vol. i. p. 223. § Ib. p. 222. 


t Ib. vol. 1 . p. 203. 

II Ib. p. 271. IT Ib. p. 29a 




Evidences of Christianity. 93 

of Lyons in France,* * * § they are called ‘Divine Scriptures,’—‘Divine 
Oracles,’—‘Scriptures of the Lord,’—‘Evangelic and Apostolic 
Writings.’! The quotations of Irenaeus prove decidedly, that our 
present Gospels, and these alone, together with the Acts of the 
Apostles, were the historical books comprehended by him under 
these appellations. 

V. Saint Matthew’s Gospel is quoted by Theophilus, bishop of 
Antioch, contemporary with Irenaeus, under the title of the ‘Evan¬ 
gelic Voice;’! ^d the copious works of Clement of Alexandria, 
published within fifteen years of the same time, ascribe to the 
books of the New Testament the various titles of ‘ Sacred Books,’— 
‘Divine Scriptures,’—‘Divinely inspired Scriptures,’—‘Scriptures 
of the Lord,’---‘ the true Evangelical Canon.’$ 

VI. Tertullian, who joins on with Clement, beside adopting most 
of the names and epithets above noticed, calls the Gospels ‘our 
Digesta,’ in allusion, as it should seem, to some collection of Roman 
laws then extant|| 

VII. By Origen, who came thirty years after Tertullian, the same, 
and other no less strong titles, are applied to the Christian Scrip¬ 
tures : and, in addition thereunto, this writer frequently speaks of 
the ‘ Old and New Testament,’—‘The Ancient and New' Scriptures,' 
—‘ the Ancient and New Oracles.’H 

VIII. In Cyprian, who was not twen^ years later, they are ‘Books 
of the Spirit,’—‘Divine Fountains,’—‘Fountain of the Divine Full¬ 
ness. 

The expressions we have thus quoted, are evidences of high and 
peculiar respect. They all occur within tw'o centuries from the 
publication of the books. Some of them commence with the com- 
j^nions of the apostles, and they increase in number and variety, 
^ough a series of writers touchmg one upon another, and deduced 
from the first age of the religion. 


SECT. V. 

Our Scriptures were puhlicly read and expounded in the religious 
assemblies of the early Christians. 

Justin Martyr, who wrote in the year 140, which was seventy 
or eighty years after some, and less, probably, after others of the 
Gospels were published, giving, in his first apology, an account to 
the emperor of the Christian worship, has this remarkable passage: 

‘ The Memoirs of the Apostles, or the Writings of the Prophets, are 
read according as the time allows: and, when the reader has ended. 


* The reader will observe the remoteness of these two writers in 

country and situation, 

t Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 343, &c. 

§ Ib. vol. ii. p. 515. 

IT Ib. vol. iii. p.230. 


t Ib. p. 427. 

II Ib. p. 630. 

** Ib. vol. iv. p. 844. 




94 Paleifs View of the 

the president makes a discourse, exhorting to the imitation of so ex 
cellent things.’* 

A few short observations will show the value of this testimony. 

1. The ‘ Memoirs of the Apostles,’ Justin in another place ex¬ 
pressly tells us, are what are called ‘ Gospels:’ and that they were 
the Gospels which we now use, is made certain by Justin’s numer¬ 
ous quotations of them, and his silence about any others. 

2. Justin describes the general usage of the Christian church. 

3. Justin does not speak of it as recent or newly instituted, but in 
the terms in which men speak of established customs. 

II. Tertullian, w'ho followed Justin at the distance of about fifty 
years, in his account of the religious assemblies of Christians as they 
were conducted in his time, says, ‘ We come together to recollect 
the Divine Scriptures; we nourish our faith, raise our hope, confirm 
our trust, by the sacred word.’t 

III. Eusebius records of Origen, and cites for his authority the 
letters of bishops contemporary with Origen, that, when he went 
into Palestine about the year 216, which was only sixteen years 
after the date of Tertulhan’s testimony, he was desired by the 
bishops of that country to discourse and expound the Scriptures 
publicly in the church, though he was not yet ordained a presby- 
ter.t This anecdote recognizes the usage not only of reading, but 
of expounding, the Scriptures; and both as subsisting in full force. 
Origen also himself bears witness to the same practice : ‘ This (says 
he) vye do, when the Scriptures are read in the church, and when 
the discourse for explication is delivered to the people.’$ And what 
is a still more ample testimony, many homilies of his upon the 
Scriptures of the New Testament, delivered by him in the assem¬ 
blies of the church, are still extant. 

IV. Cyprian, whose age was not twenty years lower than that of 
Origen, gives his people an account of having ordained two persons, 
who were before confessors to be-readers; and what they were 
to read, appears by the reason which he gives for his choice. 
‘Nothing (says Cyprian) can be more fit, than that he, who has 
made a glorious confession of the Lord, should read publicly in the 
church; that he who has shown himself willing to die a martyr, 
should read the Gospel of Christ by which martyrs are made.’H 

V. Intirnations of the same custom may be traced in a great num¬ 
ber of writers in the beginning and throughout the whole of the 
fourth century. Of these testimonies I will only use one, as being 
of itself, express and full. Augustine, who appeared near the con¬ 
clusion of the century, displays the benefit of the Christian religion 
on this very account, the public reading of the Scriptures in the 
churches, ‘ where (says he) is a confluence of all sorts of peovje of 
both sexes; and where they hear how they ought to live vvell in 
this world, that they may deserve to live happily and eternally in 


* Lardner. Cred. vol. i. p. 273. 
1 Ib. vol. iii p. 68. 

IJ Ib. vol. iv. p. 842. 


t Ib. vol. ii. p. 628. 
§ Ib. vol. iii. p. 302. 



Evidences of Christianity. 95 

another.’ And this custom he declares to be universal: ‘The 
canonical books of Scripture being read everywhere, the miracles 
therein recorded are well known to all people.’* 

It does not appear that any books, other than our present Scrip¬ 
tures, were thus publicly read, except that the epistle of Clement 
was read in the church of Corinth to which it had been addressed, 
and some in others: and that the Shepherd of Hermas was read in 
many churches. Nor does it subtract much from the value of the 
argument, that these two writings partly come within it, because 
we allow them to be the genuine writings of apostolical men. 
There is not the least evidence, that any other Gospel, than .he 
four which we receive, was ever admitted to this distinction. 


SECT. VI. 

Commentaries were anciently written upon the Scriptures ; harmonies 
fmmed out of them; different copies carefidly collected; and wer- 
sions made of them into different tangvages. 

No greater proof can be given of the esteem in which these 
books were holden by the ancient Christians, or of the sense they 
entertained of their value and importance, than the industry 
bestowed upon them. And it ought to be observed, that the value 
and imjiorlap.ce of these books consisted entirely in their genuine¬ 
ness and truth. There was nothing in them, as works of taste, or 
as compositions, which could have induced any one to have written 
a note upon them. Moreover it shows that they were even then 
considered as ancient books. Men do not write comments upon 
publications of their own times: therefore the testimonies cited 
under this head afford an evidence which carries up the evangelic 
writings much beyond the age of the testimonies themselves, and 
to that of their reputed authors. 

I. Tatian, a follower of Justin Martyr, and who flourished about 
the year 170, composed a harmony, or collation of the Gospels, 
which he called Diatessaron, Of the fbur.t The title, as well as 
the work, is remarkable; because it shows that then, as now, there 
were four, and only four. Gospels in general use with Christians. 
And this was little more than a hundred years after the publication 
of some of them. 

II. Pantaenus, of the Alexandrian school, a man of great reputa¬ 
tion and learning, who came twenty years after Tatian, wrote 
many commentaries upon the Holy Scriptures, which, as Jerome 
testifies, were extant in his time.J 

III. Clement of Alexandria wrote short explications of many 
books of the Old and New Testament.$ 


* Lardner, Cred. vol. x. p. 276, &c. 
t Ib. p. 455. 


t Ib. vol. i. p. ?,(n. 

§ Ib. vol. ii, p. 462. 



96 


Paley's View of the 


IV. Tertullian appeals from the authority of a later version, then 
in use, to the authentic Greek.* 

V. An anonymous author, quoted by Eusebius, and who appears 
to have written about the year 212, appeals to the ancient c<mies of 
the Scriptures in refutation of some corrupt readings alleged by the 
followers of Artemon.t 

VI. The same Eusebius, mentioning by name several writers of 
the church who lived at this t’me, and concerning whom he says, 

‘ There still remain divers monuments of the laudable industry of 
those ancient and ecclesiastical men’ (i. e. of Christian writers who 
were considered as ancient in the year 300), adds, ‘ There are, be¬ 
sides, treatises of many others, whose names we have not been able 
to learn, orthodox and ecclesiastical men, as the interpretations of 
the Divine Scriptures given by each of them show.t 

VII. The last five testimonies may be referred to the year 200; 
immediately after which, a period of thirty years gives us 

Julius Africanus, who wrote an epistle upon the apparent differ¬ 
ence in the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, which he endeavors 
to reconcile by the distinction of natural and legal descent, and 
conducts his hypothesis with great industry through the whole se¬ 
ries of generations.5 

Ammonius, a learned Alexandrian, who composed, as Tatian had 
done, a harmony of the four Gospels; which proves, as Tatian’s 
work did, that there were four Gospels, and no more, at this time, 
in use in the church. It affords also an instance of the zeal of 
Christians for those writings, and of their solicitude alxiut them.H 

And, above both these, Origen, w’ho wrote commentaries, or hom¬ 
ilies, upon most of the books included in the New Testament, and 
upon no other books but these. In particular, he wrote upon Saint 
John’s Gospel, very largely upon Saint Mathew’s, and commenta¬ 
ries, or homilies, upon the Acts of the Apostles.lT 

VIII. In addition to these the third century likewise contains 

Dionysius of Alexandria, a very learned man, who compared 

with great accuracy, the accounts in the four Gospels of the time of 
Christ’s resurrection, adding a reflection which showed his opinion 
of their authority: ‘ Let us not think that the evangelists disagree, 
or contradict each other, although there be some small difference; 
but let us honestly and faithfully endeavor to reconcile what we 


read.’** 


Victorin, bishop of Pettaw, in Germany, who wrote comments 
upon Saint Matthew’s Gospel.tt 

Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch; and Hesychius, an Egyptian 
bishop, who put forth editions of the New Testament. 


* Lardner, Cred. vol. ii. p. 638. 
t Ib. vol. ii. p. 551. 
if Tb. p. 122. 

** Ib. vol. iv. p. 166. 


t Ib. vol. iii. p. 46. 

§ Ib. vol. iii. p. 170. 

IT Ib. p. 352. 192.202. 245. 
tt Ibj p. 195. 



Evidences of Christianity, 97 

iX. The fourth century supplies a catalogue* of fourteen writers, 
who expended their labors upon the books of the New Testament, 
and whose works or names are come down to our times; amongst 
which number it may be sufficient, for the purpose of showing the 
sentiments and studies of learned Christians of that age, to notice 
the following: 

Eusebius, in the very beginning of the century, wrote expressly 
upon the discrepancies observable in the Gospels, and likewise a 
treatise, in which he pointed out what things are related by four, 
what by three, what hy two, and what by one evangelist.t This 
author also testifies, what is certainly a material piece of evidence, 
* that the writings of the apostles had obtained such an esteem, as to 
be translated into every language both of Greeks and Barbarians, 
and to be diligently studied by all nations.’t This testimony was 
given about the year 300; how long before that date these transla¬ 
tions were made does not appear. 

Damasus, bishop of Rome, corresponded with Saint Jerome upon 
the exposition of difficult texts of Scripture: and, in a letter still re- 
Kaaining, desires Jerome to give him a clear explanation of the word 
Hosanna, found in the New Testament; ‘he (Damasus) having met 
with very different interpretations of it in the Greek and Latin com¬ 
mentaries of Catholic writers which he had read.’$ This last clause 
shows the number and variety of commentaries then extant. 

Gregory of Nyssen, at one time, appeals to the most exact copies of 
St, Mark’s Gospel; at another time, compares together, and proposes 
to reconcile, the several accounts of the resurrection given by the 
four Evangelists; which limitation proves, that there were no other 
histories of Christ deemed authentic beside these, or included in 
the same character with these. This writer observes, acutely 
enough, that the disposition of the clothes in the sepulchre, the 
napkin that was about our Saviour’s head, not lying with the linen 
clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself, did not bespeak 
the terror and hurry of thieves, and therefore refutes the story of 
the body being stolen.|| 

Ambrose, bishop of Milan, remarked various readings in the 
Latin copies of the New Testament, and appeals to the original 
Greek; 

And Jerome, towards the conclusion of this century, put forth an 
edition of the New Testament in Latin, corrected, at least as to the 
Gospels, by Greek copies, ‘ and those (he says) ancient.’ 


* Eusebius, A. D. ... 315 
Juvencus, Spain . . , 330 
Theodore, Thrace . . . 334 
Hilary, Poictiers . . . 354 

Fortunatus.340 

Apollinariiisof Laodicea 362 
Damasus, Rome . . . 366 
Gregory, Nyssen ... 371 
t Lardner, Cred. vol. viii. p.46. 
Jib. vol. lx. p. 108. 


Didimus of Alexandria 

. 370 

Ambrose of Milan . . 

. 374 

Diodore of Tarsus . . , 

. 378 

Gaudent of Brescia . . 

. 387 

Theodore of Cilicia . , 

, 394 

Jerome.. 

. 392 

Chrysostom. 

. 398 


t Ib. p. 201. 

II Ib. p. 163. 

I 






98 Paley's View of the 

Lastly, Chrysostom, it is well known, delivered and published a 
great many homilies, or sermons, upon the Gospels and the Acts of 
the Apostles. . . „. 

It is needless to bring down this article lower; but it is of im¬ 
portance to add, that there is no example of Christian writers of the 
first three centuries composing comments upon any other books than 
those which are found in the New Testament, except the single one 
of Clement of Alexandria commenting upon a book called the 
Revelation of Peter. 

Of the ancient versions of the New Testament, one of the most 
valuable is the Syriac. Syriac was the language of Palestine when 
Christianity was there first established. And although the books of 
Scripture were written in Greek, for the purpose of a more extended 
circulation than within the precincts of Judea, yet, it is probable - 
that they would soon be translated into the vulgar language of the 
country where the religion first prevailed. Accordingly, a Syriac 
translation is now extant, all along, so far as it appears, used by the 
inhabitants ol Syria, bearing many internal marks of high antiquity, 
supported in its pretensions by the uniform traditions of the east, 
and confirmed by the discovery of many very ancient manuscripts 
in the libraries of Europe. It is about two hundred years since a 
bishop of Antioch sent a copy of this translation into Europe, to be 
printed; and this seems to be the first time that the translation be¬ 
came generally known to these parts of the world. The bishop of 
Antioch’s Testament was found to contain all our books, except the 
second epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, and the Reve¬ 
lation ; which books, however, have since been discovered in that 
language in some ancient manuscripts of Europe. But in this col¬ 
lection, no other book, beside what is in ours, appears ever to have 
had a place. And, which is worthy of observation, the tex^ though 
preserved in a remote country, and without communication with 
ours, differs from ours very little, and in nothing that is important* 


SECT. VII. 

Our Scriptures vxre received by ancient Christians of different sects 
and persuasions, by many heretics as well as Catholics, and were 
usually appealed to by both sides in the controversies which arose in 
those days. 

The three most ancient topics of controversy amongst Christians, 
were, the authority of the Jewish constitution, the origin of evil, 
and the nature of Christ Upon the first of these we find, in very 
early times, one class of heretics rejecting the Old Testament en¬ 
tirely; another contending for the obligation of its law, in all its 
parts, throughout its whole extent, and over every one who sought 
acceptance with God. Upon the two latter subjects, a natural, per- 


♦ Jones on the Canon, vol. i. c. 24. 



Evidences of Christianity. 99 

haps, and venial, but a fruitless, eager, and impatient curiosity, 
prompted by the philosophy and by the scholastic habits of the age 
which carried men much into bold hypotheses and conjectural solu¬ 
tions, raised, amongst some who professed Christianity, very wild 
and unfounded opinions. I think there is no reason to believe that 
the number of these bore any considerable proportion to the body 
of the Christian church; and amidst the disputes which such 
opinions necessarily occasioned, it is a great satisfaction to perceive, 
what, ip a vast plurality of instances, we do perceive, all sides re¬ 
curring to the same Scriptures. 

*1. Basilides lived near the age of the apostles, about the year 
120, or, perhaps, sooner.t He rejected the Jewish institution, not as 
spurious, but as proceeding from a being inferior to the true God ; 
and in other respects advanced a scheme of theology widely dif¬ 
ferent from the general doctrine of the Christian church, and which, 
as it gained over some disciples, was warmly opposed by Christian 
writers of the second and third century. In these writings, there is 
positive evidence that Basilides received the Gospel of Matthew ; 
and there is no sufficient proof that he rejected any of the other 
three: on the contrary, it appears that he wrote a commentary upon 
the Gospel, so copious as to be divided into twenty-four boofe.t 

II. The Valentinians appeared about the same time.$ Their 
heresy consisted in certain notions concerning angelic natures, which 
can hardly be rendered intelligible to a modern reader. They seem, 
however, to have acquired as much importance as any of the sepa¬ 
ratists of that early age. Of this sect, Irenaeus, who wrote, a. d. 
172, expressly records that they endeavored to fetch arguments for 
their opinions from the evangelic and apostolic writings.il Herac- 
leon, one of the most celebrated of the sect, and who lived probably 
so early as the year 125, wrote commentaries upon Luke and John.T 
Some observations also of his upon Matthew are preserved by 
Origen.^*^* Nor is there any reason to doubt that he received the 
whole New Testament. 

III. The Carpocratians were also an early heresy, little, if at all. 
later than the two preceding.tt Some of their opinions resembled 
what we at this day mean by Socinianism. With respect to the 
Scriptures, they are specifically charged, by Irenaeus and by Epi- 
phanius, with endeavoring to pervert a passage in Matthew, which 
amounts to a positive proof that they received that Gospel.ft Nega¬ 
tively, they are not accused, by their adversaries, of rejecting any 
part of the New Testament. 


* The materials of the former part of this section are taken from Dr. 
Lardncr’s History of the Heretics, of the first two Centuries, published 
since his death, with additions, by the Rev. Mr. Hogg, of Exeter, and in¬ 
serted into the ninth volume of his works, of the edition of 1778. 


t Lardner, vol ix. ed. 1788, p 271. 
§ Ib. p. 350, 351. 
ir Ib. vol. ix. ed. 1788, p. 352. 
ft Ib. 309. 


t Ib. p. 305, 306. 

|( Ib. vol. i. p. 383. 
** Ib. p. 353. 

H Ib. 318. 




100 


Paley s View of the 


IV. The Sethians, a. d. 150 the Montanists, a. d. 156 ;t the 
Marcosians, a. d. 160 Hermogenes, a. d. 180 ;§ Praxias, a. d. ]96;I1 
Artemon, a. d. 200 ;ir Theodotus, a. d. 200; all included under the 
denomination of heretics, and all engaged in controversies with 
Catholic Christians, received the Scriptures of the New Testa¬ 
ment. 

V. Tatian, who lived in the year 172, went into many extrava¬ 
gant opinions, was the founder of a sect called Encratites, and was 
deeply involved in disputes with the Christians of that age; yet 
Tatian so received the four Gospels as to compose a harmony from 
them. 

VI. From a writer, quoted by Eusebius, of about the year 300, it 
is apparent that they who at that time contended for the mere hu¬ 
manity of Christ, argued from the Scriptures; for they are accused 
by this writer, of making alterations in their copies, in order to favor 
their opinions.’*'* 

VII. Origen’s sentiments excited great controversies,—the bishops 
of Rome and Alexandria, and many others, condemning, the bishops 
of the east espousing them; yet there is not the smallest question^ 
but that both the advocates and adversaries of these opinions ac¬ 
knowledged the same authority of Scripture. In his time, which 
the reader will remember was about one hundred and fifty years 
after the Scriptures were published, many dissensions subsisted 
amongst Christians, wdth which they were reproached by Celsus, 
yet Origen, who has recorded this accusation without contradicting 
It, nevertheless testifies, that the four Gospels were received vnth- 
out dispute, by the whole church of God under heaven.tt 

yill. Paul of Samosata, about thirty years after Origen, so distin¬ 
guished himself in the controversy concerning the nature of Christ, 
as to be the subject of two councils or synods, assembled at Antioch 
upon his opinions. Yet he is not charged Iw his adversaries with 
rejecting any book of the New Testament. On the contraiy, Epiph- 
anius, who wrote a history of heretics a hundred years afterward, 
says, that Paul endeavored to support his doctrine by texts of Scrip¬ 
ture. And Vincentius Lirinensis, a. d. 434, speaking of Paul and 
other heretics of the same age, has these words: ‘ Here, perhaps, 
some one may ask, whether heretics also urge the testimony of 
Scripture. They urge it indeed, explicitly and vehemently; for 
you may see them flying through every book of the sacred law.’Jt 

IX. A controversy at the same time existed with the Noetians or 
Sabellians, who seem to have gone into the opposite extreme from 
hat of Paul of Samosata and his followers. Yet, according to the 
xpress testimony of Epiphanius, Sabellius received all the Scrip¬ 
tures. And with both sects Catholic writers constantly allege the 


* Lardner, vol. ix. ed. 1788, p. 455. t Ib. 482. 


t Ib. 348. 

II Ib. 433. 

Ib. vol. iii. p 46. 
H Ib. vol. xi. p. 158. 


IT Ib. 466. 

tt Ib. vol. iv. p. 642. 


§ Ib. 473. 




Evidences of Christianity. 101 

tom7a«feuTar SS. <>PP<>n^n<» drew 

therefore, a proof, that parties, who were the most 
opposite and irreconcilable to one another, acknowledged the au- 
thwity of Scripture with equal deference. 

^ general testimony to the same point, may be pro¬ 
duced Avhat was said by one of the bishops of the council of Car- 
holden a little before this time,—' I am of opinion 
blasphemous and wicked heretics, who;ieri;ert the sacred 
and adorable words of the Scriptures, should be execrated.’* Un- 
perverted they received. 

VI. The Millennium, Novatianism, the baptism of heretics, the 
Keeping ot blaster, engaged also the attention and divided the opin- 
and before that time (and, by the way, it may 
be observed, that such disputes, though on some accounts to be 
blamed, showed how much men were in earnest upon the subject) ; 

nuthZft^ ‘'n- for the grounds of his opinion to Scripture 

authority. Dionysius of Alexandria, who flourished a. d. 247, de- 

disputation with the Millennarians 
their adversary, ‘that they em- 
Sood arguments from the 
^ A- D. 251, distinguished by some rigid 

Bcntiments concerning the reception of those who had lapsed, and 
the founder of a numerous sect, in his few remaining works quotes 
the Gospel with the same respect as other Christians did; and con¬ 
cerning his followers, the testimony of Socrates, who wrote about 

between the 

Catholics and them each side endeavored to support itself by the 
authority of the Divine Scriptures.’J 
XII. The Donatists, who sprung up in the year 328, used the 
same Scriptures as we do. ‘ Produce (saith Augustine) some proof 
/b® ^Ttwres, whose authority is common to us both.’5 
11. It IS perfectly notorious that, in the Arian controversy, 
which arose soon after the year 300, both sides appealed to the 
^me Scriptures, and with equal professions of deference and regard. 

1 he Arians, in their council of Antioch, a. d. 341, pronounce, that, 

It any one, contrary to the sound doctrine of the Scriptures, say, 
that the Son is a creature, as one of the creatures, let him be an 
anathema. || They and the Athanasians mutually accuse each other 
ot using unscnptural phrases; which was a mutual acknowledg¬ 
ment ot the conclusive authority of Scripture. 

Priscillianists, a. d. 378,11 the Pelagians, a. d. 405,** re¬ 
ceived the same Scriptures as we do. 

XV. The testimony of Chrysostom, who lived near the year 400, 
is so positive in affirmation of the proposition which we maintain, 


* Lardner, vol. xi. p. 839. 

I Ib. vol. v. p. 105. 

II Ib. p. 277. 

*♦ Ib. vol. xi. p. 52. 


t Ib. vol iv. p. 666. 
§ Ib. vol. vii. p. 243. 
t Ib. vol. ix. p. 325. 


I 2 




102 Paley's View of the 

that it may form a proper conclusion of the argument. ‘ The gene¬ 
ral reception of the Gospels is a proof that their history is true and 
consistent; for, since the writings of the Gospels, many heresies 
have arisen, holding opinions contrary to what is contained in them, 
who yet received the Gospels either entire or in part.’* I am not 
moved bv what may seem a deduction from Chrysostom’s testimony, 
the words, ‘ entire or in part;’ for, if all the parts, which were ever 
questioned in our Gospels, were given up, it would not affect the 
miraculous origin of the religion in the smallest degree: e. g. 

Cerinthus is said by Epiphanius to have received the Gospel of 
Matthew, but not entire. What the omissions w'ere, does not ap¬ 
pear. The common opinion, that he rejected the first tw’o chapters, 
seems to have been a mistake.t It is agreed, however, by all who 
have given any account of Cerinthus, that he taught that the Holy 
Ghost (whether he meant by that name a person or a power) de¬ 
scended upon Jesus at his baptism; that Jesus from this time per¬ 
formed many miracles, and that he appeared after his death. He 
must have retained therefore the essential parts of the history. 

Of all the ancient heretics, the most extraordinary was Marcion4 
One of his tenets was the rejection of the Old Testament, as pro¬ 
ceeding from an inferior and imperfect deity: and in pursuance of 
this hypothesis he erased from the New, and that, as it should seem, 
without entering into any critical reasons, every passage which re¬ 
cognized the Jewish Scriptures. He spared not a text which con¬ 
tradicted his opinion. It is reasonable to believe that Marcion 
treated books as he treated texts; yet this rash and wild controver¬ 
sialist published a recension, or chastised edition, of Saint Luke’s 
Gospel, containing the leading facts, and all which is necessary to 
authenticate the religion. This example affords proof, that there 
were always some points, and those the main points, which neither 
wildness nor rashness, neither the fury of opposition nor the intem¬ 
perance of controversy, would venture to call in question. There 
is no reason to believe that Marcion, though full of resentment 
against the Catholic Christians, ever charged them with forging 
their books. ‘ The Gospel of Saint Matthew, the Epistle to the He¬ 
brews, with those of Saint Peter and Saint James, as well as the 
Old Testament in general (he said), were writings not for Christiana 
but for Jews.’§ This declaration shows the ground upon \yhich 
Marcion proceeded in his mutilation of the Scriptures, viz. his dis¬ 
like of the passages or the books. Marcion flourished about the year 
130. 

Dr. Lardner, in his general Review, sums up this head of evi¬ 
dence in the following words. ‘Noetus, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, 


* Lardner, vol. x. p. 316. t Ib. vol. ix. ed. 1788, p. 322. 

I Ib. sect. ii. c. x. Also Michael, vol.i. c i. sect, xviii. 

§ I have transcribed this sentence from Michaelis (p. ^), who has not, 
however, referred to the authority upon which he attributes these words 
to Marcion. 



Evidences of Christianity. 


103 

Marcellus, Photinus, the Novatians, Donatists, Manicheans * Priscil- 
Imniste, beside Artemon, the Audians, the Arians, and divers others, 
all received most or all the same books of the New Testament 
Which the Catholics received; and agreed in a like respect for them 
as written by apostles, or their disciples and companions.’t 


SECT. VIIL 

The four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Episdes of Saint 
Earn, the First Epistle of John, and the First of Peter, were received 
without doubt by those who doubted concerning the other books which 
are included in our present canon. 


I STATE this proposition, because, if made out, it shows that the 
authenticity of their books was a subject amongst the early Chris- 
tiaiis ofcorisideration and inquiry; and that, where there was cause 
ot doubt, they did doubt; a circumstance which strengthens very 
much their testimony to such books as were received by them with 
lull acquiescence. ^ 

I. Jerome, in his account ofCaius, who was probably a presbyter 
of Rome, and who flourished near the year 200, records of him, that, 
reckoning up only thirteen epistles of Paul, he says the fourteenth, 
* w ll ^ the Hebrews, is not his: and then Jerome adds. 

With the Romans to this day it is not looked upon as Paul’s.’ This 
agrees in the main with the account given by Eusebius of the same 
ancient author and his work; except that Eusebius delivers his own 
remark in more guarded terms: ‘And indeed to this very time by 
some ot the Romans, this epistle is not thought to be the apostle’s.'J 
, about twenty years after Caius, quoting the Epistle to 

the Hebrews, observes that some might dispute the authority of that 
epistle; and therefore proceeds to quote to the same point, as «n- 
doubted books of Scripture, the Gospel of Saint Matthew, the Acts 
ot the Apostles, and Paul’s First Epistle to the Thessalonians.$ And 
m anoth^ place, this author speaks of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
mus‘ 1 he account come down to us is various; some saying that 
Clement, who was bishop of Rome, wrote this epistle; others, that 
It was Luke, the same who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.’ Speak¬ 
ing also, in the same paragraph, of Peter, ‘Peter (says he) has left 
one epistle, acknowledged; let it be granted likewise that he wrote 
a second, for it is doubted of.’ And of John, ‘ He has also left one 
epistle, of a very few lines; grant also a second and a third, for all 
do not allow them to be genuine.’ Now let it be noted, that Origen, 
who thus discriminates, and thus confesses his own doubts, and the 


* This must be with an exception, however, of Faustus, who lived so 
late as the year 384. 

t Lardner, vol. xii. p. 12 —Dr. Lardner’s future inquiries supplied him 
with many other instances. ^ 

t Lardner, vol. iii. p. 240. § 15 . p. 245 . 




104 Paley's View of the 

doubts which subsisted in his time, expressly witnesses coneemittg 
the four Gospels, ‘ that they alone are received without dispute by 
the whole church of God under heaven.’* 

III. Dionysius of Alexandria, in the year 247, doubts concerning 
the book of Revelation, whether it was written by Saint John; 
states the grounds of his doubt, represents the diversity of opinion 
concerning it, in his own time, and before his time.t Yet the same 
Dionysius uses and collates the four Gospels in a manner which 
shows that he entertained not the smallest suspicion of their au¬ 
thority, and in a manner also which shows that they, and they alone, 
were received as authentic histories of Christ.! 

IV. But this section may be said to have been framed on purpose 
to introduce to the reader two remarkable passages extant in Euse¬ 
bius’s Ecclesiastical History. The first passage opens with these 
words;—Let us observe the writings of the apostle John which are 
unconlradicted ; and first of all must be mentioned, as acknowledged 
of all, the Gospel according to him, well known to all the churches 
under heaven.’ The author then proceeds to relate the occasion of 
writing the Gospels, and the reason for placing Saint John’s the last, 
manifestly speaking of all the four as parallel in their authority, and 
in the certainty of their original.^ 'The second passage is taken 
from a chapter, the title of which is, ‘Of the Scriptures universaUy 
acknowledged, and of those that are not such.’ Eusebius begins his 
enumeration in the following manner:—‘ In (he first place, are to be 
ranked the sacred four Gospels; then the book of the Acts of the 
Apostles; after that are to be reckoned the Epistles of Paul. In the 
next place, that called the Fimt Epistle of John, and the Epistle of 
Peter, are to be esteemed authentic. After this is to be placed, if it 
be thought fit, the Revelation of John, about which we shall observe 
the different opinions at proper seasons. Of the controverted, but 
yet well known or approved by the most, are, that called the Epistle 
of James, and that of Jude, andf the Second of Peter, and the Second 
and Third of John, whether they are written by the evangelist, or 
another of the same name.’tl He then proceeds to reckon up five 
others, not in our canon, which he calls in one place spurious, in 
another controverted, meaning, as appears to me, nearly the same 
thing by these two words.1'^ 

It is manifest from this passage, that the four Gospels, and the Acts 
of the Apostles (the parts of Scripture with which our concern prin¬ 
cipally lies), w^ere acknowledged without dispute, even by those 
who raised objections, or entertained doubts, about some other parts 


* r.aidner, vol. ii. p. 234. t Ib. vol. iv. p. 670. 

I Ib. p. 661. § Ib. vol. viii. p. 90. |( Ib. p. 39. 

ir That Eusebius could not intend, by the word rendered ‘spurious/ 
what we at present mean by it, is evident from a clause in this very chap¬ 
ter, where, speaking of the Gospels of Peter, and Thomas, and Matthias, 
and some others, he says, ‘ They are not so much as to be reckoned among 
the spurious, but are to be rejected as altogether absurd and impious,* 
Vol. viii. p. 98. 



Evidences of Christianity. 105 

of the same collection. But the passage proves something more 
than this. The author was extremely conversant in the writings of 
Christians, which had been published from the commencement of 
the institution to his own time: and it was from these writings that 
he drew his knowledge of the character and reception of the books 
in question. That Eusebius recurred to this medium of information, 
and that he had examined with attention this species of proof is 
shown, first, by a passage in the very chapter we are quoting,'in 
which, speaking of the books which he calls spurious, ‘ None (says 
he) of the ecclesiastical writers, in the succession of the apostil, 
have vouchsafed to make any mention of them in their writings f 
and, secondly, by another passage of the same work, wherein, speak- 
ing of the First Epistle of Peter, ‘This (says he) the presbyters of 
ancient times have quoted in their writings as undoubtedly genu- 
and then, speaking of some other writings bearing the name 
of Peter, ‘ We know (he says) that they have not been delivered 
down to us in the number of Catholic writings, forasmuch as no 
ecclesiastical writer of the ancients, or of our times, has made use 
of testimonies out of them.’ ‘ But in the progress of this history,’ 
the author proceeds, we shall make it eur business to show, ^ 
gether with the successions from the apostles, what ecclesiastical 
writers, in every age, have used such writings as these which are 
contradicted, and what they have said with regard to the Scriptures 
received in the New Testament, and acknowledged by all, and with 
regard to those which are not such.’t 
After this it is reasonable to believe, that when Eusebius states 
the four Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, as uncontradicted, 
uncontested, and acknowledged by all; and when he places them 
in opposition, not only to those which were spurious, in our sense 
of that term, but to those which were controverted, and even to 
those which were well known and approved by many, yet doubted 
of by some; he represents not only the sense of his own age, but 
the result of the evidence which the writings of prior ages, from 
the apostle’s time to his own, had furnished to his inquiries. 'The 
opinion of Eusebius and his contemporaries appears to have been 
founded upon the testimony of writers whom they then called 
ancient: and we may observe, that such of the works of these 
writers as have come down to our times, entirely confirm the judg¬ 
ment, and support the distinction, which Eusebius proposes. The 
books which he calls ‘ books universally acknowledged,’ are in fact 
used and quoted in the remaining works of Christian writers, during 
the two hundred and fifty years between the apostles’ time and that 
of Eusebius, much more frequently than, and in a different manner 
from, those, the authority of which, he tells us, was disputed 


* Lardner, vol. viii. p. 99. 


t Ib. p. 111. 




106 


Paley^s View of the 


SECT. IX. 

Our historical Scriptures were attached hy the early adversaries of 
Christianity, as containing the accounts upon which the religion was 
founded. 

Near the middle of the second century, Celsus, a heathen philoso¬ 
pher, wrote a professed treatise against Christianity. To this treatise, 
Origen, who came about fifty years after him, published an answer, 
in which he frequently recites his adversary’s words and arguments. 
The work of Celsus is lost; but that of Origen remains. Origen ap¬ 
pears to have given us the words of Celsus, where he professes to 
give them, very faithfully; and, amongst other reasons for thinking 
so, this is one, that the objection, as stated by him from Celsus, is 
sometimes stronger than his own answer. I think it also probable, 
that Origen, in his answer, has retailed a large portion of the work 
of Celsus: ‘ That it may not be suspected (he says) that we pass by 
any chapters, because we have no answers at hand, I have thought 
it best, according to my ability, to confute every thing proposed by 
him, not so much observing the natural order of things, as the order 
which he has taken himself.’* 

Celsus wrote about one hundred years after the Gospels were pub¬ 
lished ; and therefore any notices of these books from him are ex¬ 
tremely important for their antiquity. They are, however, rendered 
more so by the character of the author; for, the reception, credit, 
and notoriety, of these books must have been well established 
amongst Christians, to have made them subjects of animadversion 
and opposition by strangers and by enemies. It evinces the truth of 
what Chrysostom, two centuries afterw'ard, observed, that ‘the Gos¬ 
pels, when written, were not hidden in a corner, or buried in ob¬ 
scurity, but they were made known to all the world, before enemies 
as well as others, even as they are now.’t 

1. Celsus, or the Jew whom he personates, uses these words:— 
‘I could say many things concerning the affairs of Jesus, and those, 
too, different from those written by the disciples of Jesus; but I 
purposely omit them.’l: Upon this passage it has been rightly ob¬ 
served, mat it is not easy to believe, that if Celsus could have con¬ 
tradicted the disciples upon good evidence in any material point, he 
would have omitted to do so, and that the assertion is, what Origen 
calls it, a mere oratorical flourish. 

It is sufficient, however, to prove, that, in the lime of Celsus, 
there were books w'ell known, and allowed to be written by the 
disciples of Jesus, which books contained a history of him. By the 
term disciples, Celsus does not mean the followers of Jesus in gene¬ 
ral ; for them he calls Christians, or believers, or the like; but those 


* Orig. coat. Cels. 1. i. sect. xli. f In Matt. Horn. 1. 7. 

I Lardner, Jewish and Heathen Test. vol. ii. p. 274. 



Evidences of Christianity. 107 

vi’ho had been taught by Jesus himself, i. e. his apostles and com¬ 
panions. 

2. In another passage, Celsus accuses the Christians of altering 
the Gospel.* The accusation refers to some variations in the read¬ 
ings of particular passages ,• for Celsus goes on to object, that when 
they are pressed hard, and one reading has been confut^, they dis¬ 
own that, and fly to another. We cannot perceive from Origen, that 
Celsus specified any particular instances, and without such specifi¬ 
cation the charge is of no value. But the true conclusion to be 
drawn from it is, that there were in the hands of the Christians, his 
lories, which were even then of some standing: for, various read 
ings and corruptions do not take place in recent productions. 

The former quotation, the reader will remember, proves that these 
books were c*omposed by the disciples of Jesus, strictly so called ,* 
the present quotation shows, that, though objections were taken by 
the adversaries of the religion to the integrity of these books, none 
were made to their genuineness. 

3. In a third passage, the Jew, whom Celsus introduces, shuts up 
an argument in this manner:—‘ These things then we have alleged 
to you out of your own writings^ not needing any other weapons.’t 
It IS manifest that this boast pror*eeds upon the supposition that the 
books, over which the writer affects to triumph, possessed an au¬ 
thority by which Christians confessed themselves to be bound. 

4. That the books to which Celsus refers were no other than our 
present Gospels, is made out by his allusions to various passages still 
found in these Gospels. Celsus takes notice of the genealogies, 
which fixes two of these Gospels; of the precepts. Resist not nim 
that injures you, and. If a man strike thee on the one cheek, offer to 
him the other also,d of the woes denounced by Christ; of his pre¬ 
dictions ; of his saying, that it is impossible to serve two masters ;§ 
of the purple robe, the crown of thorns, and the reed in his hand; 
of the blood that flowed from the body of Jesus upon the cross,|j 
which circumstance is recorded by John alone; and (what is instar 
omnium for the purpose for which we produce it) of the difference 
in the accounts given of the resurrection by the evangelists, some 
mentioning two angels at the sepulchre, others only one.lT 

It is extremely material to remark, that Celsus not only perpetu¬ 
ally referred to the accounts of Christ contained in the four Gos¬ 
pels,** but that he referred to no other accounts; that he founded 
none of his objections to Christianity upon any thing delivered in 
spurious Gospels. 

II. What Celsus was in the second century. Porphyry became in 
the third. His work, which was a large and formal treatise against 
the Christian religion, is not extant. We must be content therefore 
to gather his objections from Christian writers, who have noticed in 


* Lardner, Jewish and Heathen Test. vol. ii. p. 275. t Ib. p. 276. 
t Ibid. § Ib. p. 277. |( Ib. p. 280, 281. IT Ib. p. 283. 

♦* The particulars, of which the above are only a few, are well col¬ 
lected by Mr. Bryant, p. 140. 




108 Paley^'s View of the 

order to answer them; and enough remains of this species of in¬ 
formation, to prove completely, that Porphyry’s animadversions 
were directed against the contents of our present Gospels, and of 
the Acts of the Apostles; Porphyry considering that to overthrow 
them was to overthrow the religion. Thus he objects to the repeti¬ 
tion of a generation in Saint Matthew’s genealogy; to Matthew’s 
call; to the quotation of a text from Isaiah, which is found in a 
psalm ascribed to Asaph; to the calling of the lake of Tiberias a 
sea; to the expression in Saint Matthew, ‘ the abomination of deso¬ 
lation to the variation in Matthew and Mark upon the text, ‘ The 
voice of one crying in the wilderness,’ Matthew citing it from Isaias, 
Mark from the Prophets; to John’s application of the term ‘ Word 
to Christ’s change of intention about going up to the feast of taber¬ 
nacles (John vii. 8); to the judgment denounced by Saint Peter upon 
Ananias and Sapphira, which he calls an imprecation of death.’*' 

The instances here alleged, serve, in some measure, to show the 
nature of Porphyry’s objections, and prove that Porphyry had read 
the Gospels with that sort of attention which a writer would employ 
who regarded them as the depositaries of the religion which he at¬ 
tacked. Beside these specifications, there exists, in the writings of 
ancient Christians, general evidence, that the places of Scripture 
upon which Porphyry had remarked were very numerous. 

In some of the above-cited examples. Porphyry, speaking of Saint 
Matthew, calls him your evangelist; he also uses the term evangelists 
»n the plural number. What was said of Celsus, is true likewise of 
Porphyry, that it does not appear that he considered any history of 
Christ, except these, as having authority with Christians. 

III. A third great writer against the Christian religion was the 
emperor Julian, whose w'ork was composed about a century after 
that of Porphyry. 

In various long extracts, transcribed from this work by Cyril and 
Jerome, it appears,t that Julian noticed hy name Matthew and Luke, 
in the difference between their genealogies of Christ; that he ob¬ 
jected to Matthew’s application of the prophecy, ‘Out of Egypt 
have I called my son,’ (ii. 15.) and to that of ‘A virgin shall con¬ 
ceive (i. 23.) that he recited sayings of Christ, and various pas¬ 
sages of his history, in the very words of the evangelists; m par¬ 
ticular, that Jesus healed lame and blind people, and exorcised de¬ 
moniacs in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany; that he alleged, 
ihat none of Christ’s disciples ascribed to him the creation of the 
world, except John; that neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor 
Mark, have dared to call Jesus, God; that John wrote later than 
the other evangelists, and at a time when a great number of men 
in the cities of Greece and Italy were converted; that he alludes 
to the conversion of Cornelius and of Sergius Paulus, to Peter’s 
vision, to the circular letter sent by the apostles and elders at Jeru¬ 
salem, which are all recorded in the Acts of the Apostles; by which 

* Jewish and Heathen Test. vol. iii. p. 166, &c. 

t Ib. vol. iv. p. 77, &c. 



Evidences of Christianity. 109 

quoting of the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and by 
qiioting no other, Julian shows that these were the historical books, 
and the only historical books, received by Christians as of authority, 
and as the authentic memoirs of Jesus Christ, of his apostles, and 
of the doctrines taught by them. But Julian’s testimony does some¬ 
thing more than represent the judgment of the Christian church in 
his time. It discovers also his own. He himself expressly states 
the early date of these records; he calls them by the names which 
they now bear. He all along supposes, he nowhere attempts to 
question, their genuineness. 

The argument in favor of the books of the New Testament, drawn 
from the notice taken of their contents by the early writers against 
the religion, is very considerable- It proves that the accounts, w'hich 
Christians had then, were the accounts which we have now; that 
our present i^riptures were theirs. It proves, moreover, that nei¬ 
ther Celsus in the second. Porphyry in the third, nor Julian in the 
fourth century, suspected the authenticity of these books, or even 
insinuated that Christians were mistaken in the authors to whom 
they ascribed them. Not one of them expressed an opinion upon 
this subject different from that which was holden by Christians. 
And when we consider how much it •w'ould have availed them to 
have cast a doubt upon this point, if they could; and how ready 
they showed themselves to be, to take every advantage in their 
power; and that they were all men of learning and inquiry; their 
concession, or rather their suffrage, upon the subject, is extremely 
valuable. 

In the case of Parphyry, it is made still stronger, by the considera¬ 
tion that he did in fact support himself by this species of objection, 
when he saw any room for it, or when his acuteness could supply 
any pretence for alleging it The prophecy of Daniel he attacked 
upon this very ground of spuriousness, insisting that it was written 
after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and maintains his charge of 
forgery by scwne far-fetched indeed, but very subtle criticisms. Con¬ 
cerning the writings of the New Testament, no trace of this sus¬ 
picion is anywhere to be found in him,* 


SECT. X. 

Formal ca1al(^ue$ qf authentic Scriptures were published, in all which 
our present sacred histories were included. 

This species of evidence comes later than the rest; as it was not 
natural that catalogues of any particular class of books should be 
put forth until Christian writings became numerous; or until some 
writings showed themselves, claiming titles which did not belong to 
them, and thereby rendering it necessary to separate books of au- 


* Michaelis’s Introductioa to the New Testament, vol. i. p. 43. Marsh’s 
Translation, K 



110 Foley's View of the 

thority from others. But, when it does appear, it is extremely satis¬ 
factory ; the catalogues, though numerous, and made in countries at 
a wide distance from one another, differing very little, differing in 
nothing which is material, and all containing the four Gospels. To 
this last article there is no exception. 

I. In the writings of Origen which remain, and in some extracts 
preserved by Eusebius, from works of his which are now lost, there 
are enumerations of the books of Scripture, in which the four Gos¬ 
pels and the Acts of the Apostles are distinctly and honorably speci¬ 
fied, and in w'hich no books appear beside what are now received.* 
The reader, by this time, will easily recollect that the date of Ori- 
gen’s works is a. d. 230. 

II. Athanasius, about a century afterward, delivered a catalogue 
of the books of the New Testament in form, containing our Scrip¬ 
tures and no others; of which he says, ‘In these alone the doctrine 
of religion is taught; let no man add to them or take any thing from 
them.’t 

III. About twenty years after Athanasius, Cyril, bishop of Jerusa¬ 
lem, set forth a catalogue of the books of Scripture, publicly read 
at that time in the church of Jerusalem, exactly the same as ours, 
except that the ‘ Revelation ’ is omitted.! 

IV. And fifteen years after Cyril, the council of Laodicea deliv¬ 
ered an authoritative catalogue of Canonical Scripture, like Cyril’s, 
the same as ours, with the omission of the ‘ Revelation.’ 

V. Catalogues now became frequent. Within thirty years after 
the last date, that is, from the year 363 to near the conclusion of the 
fourth century, we have catalogues by Epiphanius,$ by Gregoiy 
Nazianzen,!! by Philaster bishop of Brescia in Italy,ir by Amphilo- 
chius bishop of Iconium, all, as they are sometimes called, dean 
catalogues, (that is, they admit no tooks into the number beside 
what we now receive), and all, for every purpose of historic evi¬ 
dence, the same as ours.** 

VI. Within the same period, Jerome, the most learned Christian 
writer of his age, delivered a catalogue of the books of the New 
Testament, recognizing every book now received, with the intima¬ 
tion of a doubt concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews alone, and 
taking not the least notice of any book which is not now received.tt 

VII. Contemporary with Jerome, who lived in Palestine, was 
Saint Augustine, in Africa, who published likewise a catalogue, 
without joining to the Scriptures, as books of authority, any other 
ecclesiastical writing whatever, and without omitting one which we 
at this day acknowledge.!! 


* Lardner, Cred. vol. iii. p.234, &c. vol. viii. p. 196. 
t Ib. vol. viii. p. 223. ! Ib. p. 270. § Ib. p. 368. 

|( Ib. vol. ix. p. 132. IT Ib. p. 373. 

♦* Epiphanius omits the Acts of the Apostles. This must have been 
an accidental mistake, either in him or in some copyist of his work; for 
he elsewhere expressly refers to this book, and ascribes it to Luke, 
tt Lardner, Cred. vol. x. p. 77. !! Ib. p. 213. 



Ill 


Evidences of Christianity, 

VlII. And with these concurs another contemporary writer, 
Rufen, presbyter of Aquileia, whose catalogue, like theirs, is perfect 
and unmixed, and concludes with these remarkable words: ‘ These 
are the volumes which the fathers have included in the canon, and 
out of which they would have us prove the doctrine of our faith.'* 

SECT. XI. 

These propositions cannot he predicated of any of those hooks which 
are commonly called the Apocryphal Books of the New Testament. 

I DO not know that the objection taken from apocryphal writings 
is at present much relied upon by scholars. But there are many, 
who, hearing that various Gospels existed in ancient times under 
the names of the apostles, may have taken up a notion, that the 
selection of our present Gospels from the rest, was rather an arbi¬ 
trary or accidental choice, than founded in any clear and certain 
cause of preference. To these it may be very useful to know the 
truth of the case. I observe, therefore, 

I. That, beside our Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, no Chris¬ 
tian history, claiming to be written by an apostle or apostolical man, 
is quoted within three hundred years after the birth of Christ, by 
any writer now extant, or known; or, if quoted, is not quoted witn 
marks of censure and rejection. 

I have not advanced this assertion without inquiry; and I doubt 
not, but that the passages cited by Mr. JoneS and Dr. Lardner, under 
the several titles which the apocryphal books bear; or a reference 
to the places where they are mentioned as collected in a very accu¬ 
rate table, published in the year 1773, by the Rev. J. Atkinson, will 
make out the truth of the proposition to the satisfaction of every 
fair and competent judgment. If there be any book which may 
seem to form an exception to the observation, it is a Hebrew Gos¬ 
pel, which was circulated under the various titles of the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, of the Ebi- 
onites, sometimes called of the Twelve, by some ascribed to Saint 
Matthew. This Gospel is once, and only once, cited by Clemens 
Alexandrinus, who lived, the reader will remember, in the latter 
part of the second century, and which same Clement quotes one or 
other of our four Gospels in almost every page of his work. It is 
twice mentioned by Origen, a. d. 230; and both times with marks 
of diminution and discredit. And this is the ground upon which 
the exception stands. But what is still more material to observe is, 
that this Gospel, in the main, agreed with our present Gospel of 
Saint Matthew.t 


* Lardner, Cred. vol. x. 187. 

t In applying to this Gospel, what Jerome in the latter end of the fourth 
century has mentioned of a Hebrew Gosi)el, I think it probable that we 
sometimes confound it with a Hebrew copy of Saint Matthew’s Gospel, 
whether an original or version, which was then extant. 



112 


Paley's View of the 

Now if, with this account of the apocryphal Gospels, we compare 
what we have read concerning the canonical Scriptures in the pre¬ 
ceding sections; or even recollect that general but well-founded 
assertion of Dr. Lardner, ‘ That in the remaining works of Irenseus, 
Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, who all lived in the first 
two centuries, there are more and larger quotations of the small 
volume of the New Testament, than of all the works of Cicero, bv 
writers of all characters, for several ages and if to this we addf, 
that, notwithstanding the loss of many works of the primitive times 
of Christianity, we have, within the above-mentioned period, the 
remains of Christian writers, who lived in Palestine, Syria, Asia 
Minor, Egypt, the part of Africa that used the Latin tongue, in 
Crete, Greece, Italy, and Gaul, in all which remains, references are 
Ipund to our evangelists; I apprehend, that we shall perceive a 
clear and broad line of division, between those writings, and all 
Others pretending to similar authority. 

II. Put beside certain histories which assumed the names of apos¬ 
tles, and which were forgeries properly so called, there were some 
other Christian writings, in the whole or in part of an historical na¬ 
ture, which, though not forgeries, are denominated apocryphal, as 
being of uncertain or of no authority. 

Cf this second class of writings, I have found only two which are 
noticed by author of the ^t three centuries, without express 
terms of condemnation; and these are, the one, a book entitled the 
Preaching of Peter, quoted repeatedly by Clemens Alexandrinus, 
A. u. 196; the other, a book entitled the Revelation of Peter, upon 
wWch the above-mentioned Clemens Alexandrinus is said, by Eu¬ 
sebius, to have written notes; and which is twice cited in a work 
still extant, ascribed to the same author. 

I conceive, therefore, that the proposition we have before ad¬ 
vanced, even after it had been subjected to every exception, of 
eyery k,in<l, tlmt can be alleged, separates, by a wide interval, our 
historical Scriptures from all other writings wliich profess to give 
an account of the same subject. 

We may be permitted however to add, 

1. That there is no evidence that any spurious or apocryphal 
books whatever existed in the first century of the Christian era, in 
wliich century aft our historical books are proved to have been ex¬ 
tant. ‘ There are no quotations of aiw such books in the apostolical 
lathers, by whom I mean Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ig¬ 
natius, and Polycarp, whose writings reach from about the year of 
our Lord 70, to the year 108 (and some of whom have quoted each 
and every one of our historical Scriptures); I say this,’ adds Dr. 
Lardner, ‘ because I think it has been proved.’! 

2. These apocryphal writings were not read in the churches of 
Christians; 

3. Were not admitted into their volume; 

4. Do not appear in their catalogues; 


* Lardner, Cred. vol. xii. p. 53. 


' Ib. vol. xii. p. 158. 



Evidences of Christianity. 113 

6. Were nof. noticed by their adversaries; 

6. Were not alleged by different parties as of authority in their 
controversies; 

7. Were not the subjects, amongst them, of commentaries, ver¬ 
sions, collations, expositions. 

Finally; ^side the silence of three centuries, or evidence, 
within that time, of their rejection, they were, with a consent nearly 
universal, reprobated by Christian writers of succeeding ages. 

Although it be made out by these observations, that the books in 
question never obtained any degree of credit and notoriety which 
can place them in competition with our Scriptures; yet it appears, 
from the writings of the fourth century, that many such existed in 
that century, and in the century preceding it. It may be difficult 
at this distance of time to account for their origin. Perhaps the 
most probable explication is, that they were in general composed 
with a design of making a profit by the sale. Whatever treated of 
the subject, would find purchasers. It was an advantage taken of 
the pious curiosity of unlearned Christians. With a view to the 
same purpose, they were many of them adapted to the particular 
opinions of particular sects, which would naturally promote their 
circulation amongst the favorers of those opinions. After all, they 
were probably much more obscure than we imagine. Except the 
Gospel according to the Hebrews, there is none of which we hear 
more than the Gospel of the Egyptians; yet there is good reason to 
believe that Clement, a presbyter of Alexandria in Egypt, a. d. 184, 
and a man of almost universal reading, had never seen it.* A 
Gospel according to Peter, was another of the most ancient books 
of this kind; yet Serapion, bishop'of Antioch, a. d. 200, had not 
read it, when he heard of such a book being in the hands of the 
Christians of Rhossus in Cilicia; and speaks of obtaining a sight of 
this Gospel from some sectaries who used it.t Even of the Gospel 
of the Hebrews, which confessedly stands at the head of the cata¬ 
logue, Jerome, at the end of the fourth century, was glad to procure 
a copy by the favor of the Nazarenes of Berea. Nothing of this 
sort ever happened, or could have happened concerning our 
Gospels. 

One thing is observable of all the apocryphal Christian writings, 
viz. that they proceed upon the same fundamental history of Christ 
and his apostles, as that which is disclosed in our Scriptures. The 
mission of Christ, his power of working miracles, his communication 
of that power to the apostles, his passion, death, and resurrection, 
are assumed or asserted by every one of them. The names under 
which some of them came forth, are the names of men of eminence 
in our histories. What these books give, are not contradictions, but 
unauthorized additions. The principal facts are supposed, the prin¬ 
cipal agents the same; which shows, that these points were too 
much fixed to be altered or disputed. 

If there be any book of this description, which appears to have 


t Lardner, Cred. vol. ii^.^7. 


* Jones, vol. i. p. 243. 



114 Paley's View of the 

imposed upon some considerable number of learned Christians, it is 
the Sibylline oracles; but, when we reflect upon the circumstances 
which facilitated that imposture, we shall cease to wonder either at 
the attempt or its success. It was at that time universally under¬ 
stood, that such a prophetic writing existed. Its contents were kept 
secret. This situation afforded to some one a hint, as well as an 
opportunity, to give out a writing under this name, favorable to the 
already established persuasion of Christians, and which writing, by 
the aid and recommendation of these circumstances, would in some 
degree, it is probable, be received. Of the ancient forgeiy we know 
but little: what is now produced, could not, in my opinion, have 
imposed upon any one. It is nothing else than the Gospel history, 
woven into verse; perhaps was at first rather a fiction than a for¬ 
gery ; an exercise of ingenuity, more than an attempt to deceive. 


CHAP X. 

Recapitulation. 

Thje reader wdll now be pleased to recollect, that the two points 
which form the subject of our present discussion, are, first, that the 
Founder of Christianity, his associates, and immediate followers, 
passed their lives in labors, dangers, and sufferings; secondly, that 
they did so, in attestation of the miraculous histoiy recorded in our 
Scriptures, and solely in consequence of their belief of the truth of 
that history. 

The argument, by which these two propositions have been main¬ 
tained by us, stands thus : 

No historical fact, I apprehend, is more certain, than that the 
original propagators of Christianity voluntarily subjected themselves 
to lives of fatigue, danger, and suffering, in the prosecution of their 
undertaking. The nature of the undertaking; the character of the 
person employed in it; the opposition of their tenets to the fixed 
opinions and expectations of the country in which they first ad¬ 
vanced them; their undissembled condemnation of the religion of 
all other countries; their total want of power, authority, or force; 
render it in the highest degree probable that this must have been 
the case. The probability is increased, by what we know of the 
fate of the Founder of the institution, who was put to death for his 
attempt; and by what we' also know of the cruel treatment of the 
converts to the institution, within thirty years after its commence¬ 
ment ; both which points are attested by heathen writers, and, being 
once admitted, leave it very incredible that the primitive emissaries 
of the religion, who exercised their ministry, first, amongst the 
people who had destroyed their Master, and, afterward, amongst 
those who persecuted their converts, should themselves escape with 
impunity, or pursue their purpose in ease and safety. This proba¬ 
bility, thus sustained by foreign testimony, is advanced, I think, to 
historical certainty, by the evidence of our own books; by the ac 


Evidences of Christianity. 115 

counts of a writer Avho was the companion of the persons whose 
sufferings he relates; by the letters of the persons themselves; by 
predictions of persecutions ascribed to the Founder of the religion, 
which predictions would not have been inserted in this history, 
much less have been studiously dwelt upon, if they had not ac¬ 
corded with the event, and which, even if falsely ascribed to him, 
could only have been so ascribed, because the event suggested 
them; lastly, by incessant exhortations to fortitude and patience, 
and by an earnestness, repetition, and urgency, upon the subject, 
which were unlikely to have appeared, if there had not been, at the 
time, some extraordinary call for the exercise of these virtues. 

It is made out also, I think, with sufficient evidence, that both the 
teachera and converts of the religion, in consequence of their new 
profession, took up a new course of life and behavior. 

The next great question is, what they did this for. That it was 
for a miraculous story of some kind or other, is to my apprehension 
extremely manifest; because, as to the fundamental article, the de¬ 
signation of the person, viz. that this particular person, Jesus of 
Nazareth, ought to be received as the Messiah, or as a messenger 
from God, they neither had, nor could have, any thing but miracles 
to stand upon. That the exertions and sufferings of the apostles 
were/or the story which we have now, is proved by the considera¬ 
tion that this story is transmitted to us by two of their own number, 
and by two others personally connected with them; that the par¬ 
ticularity of the narrative proves, that the writers claimed to possess 
circumstantial information, that from their situation they had full 
opportunity of acquiring such information; that they certainly, at 
least, knew what their colleagues, their companions, their masters, 
taught; that each of these books contains enough to prove the truth 
of the religion; that, if any one of them therefore be genuine, it 
is sufficient; that the genuineness, however, of all of them is made 
out, as well by the general arguments which evince the genuine- 
riess of the most undisputed remains of antiquity, as also by pecu¬ 
liar and specific proofs, viz. by citations from them in writings be¬ 
longing to a period immediately contiguous to that in which they 
were published; by the distinguished regard paid by early Chris¬ 
tians to the authority of these books (which regard was manifested 
by their collecting of them into a volume, appropriating to that volume 
titles of peculiar respect, translating them into various languages, 
digesting them into harmonies, writing commentaries upon them, 
and, still more conspicuously, by the reading of them in their public 
assemblies in all parts of the world); by a universal agreement 
with respect to these books, whilst doubts were entertained concern¬ 
ing some others; by contending sects appealing to them; by the 
early adversaries of the religion not disputing their genuineness, 
but, on the contrary, treating them as the depositaries of the history 
upon which the religion was founded ; by many formal catalogues 
of these, as of certain and authoritative writings, published in dif’ 
ferent and distant parts of the Christian world; lastly, by the ab- 


110 


Paley^s View of the 

sence or defect of the above-cited topics of evidence, when applied 
to any other histories of the same subject. 

These are strong arguments to prove, that the books actually pro¬ 
ceeded from the authors whose names they bear (and have always 
borne, for there is not a particle of evidence to show that they ever 
went under any other); but the strict genuineness of the books is 
perhaps more than is necessary to the support of our proposition. 
For even supposing that, by reason of the silence of antiquity, or the 
loss of records, w'e know not who were the writers of the four Gos¬ 
pels, yet the fact, that they were received as authentic accounts of 
the transaction upon which the religion rested, and were received 
as such by Christians, at or near the age of the apostles, by those 
whom the apostles had taught, and by societies which apostles had 
founded; this fact, I say, connected with the consideration, that 
they are corroborative of each other’s testimony, and that they are 
farther corroborated by another contemporary history, taking up the 
story where they had left it, and, in a narrative built upon that 
story, accounting for the rise and production of changes in the 
world, the effects of which subsist at this day; connected, moreover, 
with the confirmation wfoich they receive from letters written by 
the apostles themselves, which both assume the same general story, 
and, as often as occasions lead them to do so, allude to particular 
parts of it; and connected also with the reflection, that if the ajx)s- 
tles delivered any different stoty, it is lost (the present and no other 
being referred to by a series oi Christian writers, down from their 
age to our own; being likewise recognized in a variety of institu¬ 
tions, which prevailed early and universally, amongst the disciples 
of the religion); and that so great a change, as the oblivion of one 
story and the substitution of another, under such circumstances, 
could not have taken place; this evidence would be deemed, I 
apprehend, sufficient to prove concerning these books, that, who¬ 
ever were the authors of them, they exhibit the story which the 
apostles told, and for which, consequently, they acted, and they sut 
fered. 

If it be so, the religion must be true. These 'men could not be 
deceivers. By only not bearing testimony, they might have avoided 
all these sufferings, and have lived quietly. Would men in such 
circumstances pretend to have seen what they never saw; assert 
facts which they had no knowledge of; go aoout lying, to teach 
virtue; and, though not only convinced of Christ’s being an impos¬ 
tor, but having seen the success of his imposture in his crucifixion, 
et persist in carrying it on; and so persist, as to bring upon them- 
elves, for nothing, and with a full knowledge of the consequence, 
enmity and hatred, danger and death ? 


Evidences of Christianity. 


117 


PROPOSITION IL 


Our first proposition was, ‘ That there is satisfactory evidence that many 
pretending to be original witnesses of the Christian miracles., passed their 
lives in labors,dangers., and sufferings,voluntarily undertaken andunder- 
gone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in conse¬ 
quence their belief of thetruth of those accounts; and that they also sub¬ 

mitted,from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.' Our second propo¬ 
sition, and which now remains to be treated of, is, 

That there ts not satisfactory evidence, that persons pretending to be original 
witnesses of any other similar miracles, have acted in the same manner, in 
attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence 
of their belief of the truth of those accounts' 


CHAP. 1. 

I ENTER upon this part of my argument, by declaring how far my 
belief in miraculous accounts goes. If the reformers in the time of 
Wickliffe, or of Luther; or those of England, in the time of Henry 
the Eighth, or of queen Maiy; or the founders of our religious sects 
since, such as w'ere Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Wesley in our own times; 
had undergone the life of toil and exertion, of danger and suffer¬ 
ings, which we know that many of them did undergo,/or a mirac¬ 
ulous story; that is to say, if they had founded their public ministry 
upon the allegation of miracles wrought within their own know¬ 
ledge, and upon narratives which could not be resolved into delu¬ 
sion or inistake; and if it had appeared, that their conduct really 
had its origin in these accounts, I should have believed them. Or, 
to borrow an instance which will be familiar to every one of my 
readers, if the late Mr. Howard had undertaken his labors and jour¬ 
neys in attestation, and in consequence of a clear and sensible mir¬ 
acle, I should have believed him also. Or, to represent the same 
thing under a third supposition; if Socrates had professed to per¬ 
form public miracles at Athens; if the friends of Socrates, Phiedo, 
Cebes, Crito, and Simmias, together with Plato, and many of his 
followers, relying upon the attestations which these miracles afforded 
to his pretensions, had, at the hazard of their lives, and the certain 
expense of their ease and tranquillity, gone about Greece, after his 
death, to publish and propagate his doctrines: and if these things 
had come to our knowledge, in the same way as that in which the 
life of ^crates is now transmitted to us, through the hands of his 
companions and disciples, that is, by writings received without doubt 
as theirs, from the age in which they were published to the present, 
I should have believed this likewise. And my belief would, in each 
case, be much strengthened, if the subject of the mission were of 
importance to the conduct and happiness of human life ; if it testi¬ 
fied any thing which it behoved mankind to know from such au¬ 
thority ; if the nature of what it delivered, required the sort of proof 


118 


Paley's View of the 

which it alleged; if the occasion was adequate to the interposition^ 
the end worthy of the means. In the last case, my faith would be 
much confirmed, if the effects of the transaction remained; more 
especially, if a change had been wrought, at the time, in the opinion 
and conduct of such numbers, as to lay the foundation of an instf- 
tution, and of a system of doctrines, which had since overspread the 
greatest part of the civilized world. I should have believed, I say, 
the testimony, in these cases; yet none of them do more than come 
up to the apostolic history. 

If any one choose to call assent to its evidence credulity, it is at 
least incumbent upon him to produce examples in which the same 
evidence hath turned out to be fallacious. And this contains the 
precise question which we are now to agitate. 

In stating the comparison between our evidence, and what our 
adversaries may bring into competition with ours, we will divide 
the distinctions which we wish to propose into two kinds,—those 
which relate to the proof, and those which relate to the miracles 
Under the former head we may lay out of the case, 

I. Such accounts of supernatural events as are found only in his¬ 
tories by some ages posterior to the transaction, and of which it is 
evident that the historian could know little more than his reader. 
Ours is contemporary history. This difference alone removes out 
of our way, the miraculous history of Pythagoras, who lived five 
hundred years before the Christian era, written by Porphyry and 
Jambhcus, who lived three hundred years after that era ; the prodi¬ 
gies of Livy’s history; the fables of the heroic ages; the whole of 
the Greek and Roman, as well as of the Gothic mythology ; a great 
part of the legendary history of Popish saints, the very best attested 
of which is extracted from the certificates that are exhibited during 
the process of their canonization, a ceremony which seldom takes 
place till a century after their deaths. It applies also with consid¬ 
erable force to the miracles of Apollonius Tyaneus, which are con¬ 
tained in a solitary history of his life, published by Philostratus, 
above a hundred years after his death; and in which, whether 
Philostratus had any prior account.to guide him, depends upon his 
single unsupported assertion. Also to some of the miracles of the 
third century, especially to one extraordinary instance, the account 
of Gregory, bishop of Neocesarea, called Thaumaturgus, delivered 
in the writings of Gregory of Nvssen, who lived one hundred and 
thirty years after the subject of his panegyric. 

The value of this circumstance is shown to have been accurately 
exemplified in the history of Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Order 
of Jesuits.* His life, written by a companion of his, and by one of 
the order, was published about fifteen years after his death. In 
which life, the author, so far from ascribing any miracles to Igna¬ 
tius, industriously states the reason why he was not invested with 
any such power. The life was republished fifteen years afterward, 
with the addition of many circumstances which were the fruit, the 


* Douglas’s Criterion of Miracles, p. 74. 



Evidences of Christianity. 119 

author says, of farther inquiry, and of diligent examination; but still 
with a total silence about miracles. When Ignatius had been dead 
nearW sixty years, the Jesuits, conceiving a wish to have the 
founder of their order placed in the Roman calendar, began, as it 
should seem, for the first time, to attribute to him a catalogue of 
miracles, which could not then be distinctly disproved; and which 
there was, in those who governed the church, a strong disposition 
to admit upon the slenderest proofs. 

II. We may lay out of the case, accounts published in one coun¬ 

try, of what passed in a distant country, without any proof that 
such accounts were known or received at home. In the case of 
Christianity, Judea, which was the scene of the transaction, w’as 
the of the mission. The story was published in the place 

m which It was acted. The church of Christ was first planted at 
Jerusalem itself. With that church, others corresponded. From 
thence the primitive teachers of the institution went forth; thither 
they ^sembled. The church of Jerusalem, and the several churches 
of Judea, subsisted from the beginning, and for many ages ;* re¬ 
ceived also the same books and the same accounts, as other churches 
did. 

This distinction dispioses, amongst others, of the above-mentioned 
miracles of Apollonius Tyaneus, most of which are related to have 
been performed in India; no evidence remaining that either the 
miracles ascribed to him, or the history of those miracles, were ever 
heard of in India. Those of Francis Xavier, the Indian missionary, 
with many others of the Romish breviary, are liable to the same 
objection, viz. that the accounts of them were published at a vast 
distance from the supposed scene of the wonders.t 

III. We lay out of the case transient rumors. Upon the first pub¬ 
lication of an extraordinary account, or even of an article of ordi¬ 
nary intelligence, no one, who is not personally acquainted with 
the transaction, can know whether it be true or false, because any 
man may publish any story. It is in the future confirmation, or con¬ 
tradiction, of the account; in its permanency, or its disappearance; 
its dying away into silence, or its increasing in notoriety ; its being 
followed up by subsequent accounts, and being repeated in different 
and independent accounts; that solid truth is distinguished from 
fugitive lies. This distinction is altogether on the side of Chris¬ 
tianity. The story did not drop. On the contrary, it was succeeded 
by a train of action and events dependent upion it. The accounts, 
which we have in our hands, were comjxised after the first reports 
must have subsided. They were followed by a train of writings 
upon the subject. The historical testimonies of the transaction 
were many and various, and connected with letters, discourses. 


* The succession of many eminent bishops of Jerusalem in the first 
three centuries, is distinctly preserved; as Alexander, a. d. 212, who 
succeeded Narcissus, then 116 years old. 
t Douglas’s Crit. p. 84. 



120 Foley's View of the 

controverses, apologies, successively produced by the same transac¬ 
tion. 

IV. We may lay out of the case what I call naked history. It has 
been said, that if the prodigies of the Jewish history had been found 
only in fragments of Manetho, or Berosus, we should have paid no 
regard to them: and I am willing to admit this. If we knew' no¬ 
thing of the fact, but from the fragment; if we possessed no proof 
that these accounts had been credited and acted upon, from times, 
probably, as ancient as the accounts themselves; if we had no 
visible effects connected with the history, no subsequent or collate¬ 
ral testimony to confirm it; under these circumstances, I think that 
it would be undeserving of credit. But this certainly is not our 
case. In appreciating the evidence of Christianity, the books are 
to be combined with the institution; with the prevalency of the 
religion at this day; with the time and place of its origin, which are 
acknowledged points; with the circumstances of its rise and pro¬ 
gress, as collected from external history; with the fact of our pres¬ 
ent books being received by the votaries of the institution from the 
beginning; with that of other books coming after these, filled with 
accounts of effects and consequences resulting from the transaction, 
or referring to the transaction, or built upon it; lastly, with the 
consideration of the number and variety of the books themselves, 
the different writers from which they proceed, the different views 
with which they were written, so disagreeing as to repel the sus¬ 
picion of confederacy, so agreeing as to show that they were 
founded in a common original, i. e. in a story substantially the same. 
Whether this proof be satisfactory or not, it is properly a cumulation 
of evidence, by no means a naked or solitary record. 

V. A mark of historical truth, although only in a certain way, and 
to a certain degree, particularity, in names, dates, places, circum¬ 
stances, and in the order of events preceding or following the trans¬ 
action ; of which kind, for instance, is the particularity in the de¬ 
scription of Saint Paul’s voyage and shipwreck, in the 27th chapter 
of the Acts, which no man, I think, can read without being con¬ 
vinced that the writer was there; and also in the account of the 
cure and examination of the blind man, in the ninth chapter of 
Saint John’s Gospel, which bears every mark of personal knowledge 
on the part of the historian.* I do not deny that fiction has often 
the particularity of truth; but then it is of studied and elaborate 
fiction, or of a formal attempt to deceive, that we observe this. 
Since, however, experience proves that particularity is not confined 
to truth, I have stated that it is a proof of truth only to a certain 
extent, i. e. it reduces the question to this, whether we can depend 
or not upon the probity of the relater ? which is a considerable ad¬ 
vance in our present argument; for an express attempt to deceive, 
in which case alone particularity can appear without truth, is 
charged upon the evangelists by few. If the historian acknowhdge 


* Both these chapters ought to be read for the sake of this very obser¬ 
vation. 



Evidences of Christianity. 121 

himself to have received his intelligence from others, the particu¬ 
larity of the narrative shows, prima facie, the accuracy of his inqui¬ 
ries, and the fullness of his information. This remark belongs to 
Saint Luke’s history. Of the particularity which we allege, many 
examples may be found in all the Gospels. And it is very difficult 
to conceive, that such numerous particularities, as are almost every- 
w'here to be met with in the Scriptures, should be raised out of 
nothing, or be spun out of the imagination without any fact to go 
upon.* 

It is to be remarked, how'ever, that this particularity is only to be 
looked for in direct history. It is not natural in references or allu¬ 
sions, which yet, in other respects, often afford, as far as they go, the 
most unsuspicious evidence. 

VI. We lay out of the case such stories of supernatural events, as 
require, on the part of the hearer, nothing more than an otiose as¬ 
sent; stories upon which nothing depends, in which no interest is 
involved, nothing is to be done or changed in consequence of be¬ 
lieving them. Such stories are credited, if the careless assent that 
is given to them deserve that name, more by the indolence of the 
hearer, than by his judgment: or, though not much credited, are 
passed from one to another without inquiry or resistance. To this 
case, and to this case alone, belongs what is called the love of the 
marvellous. I have never known it carry men farther. Men do not 
suffer persecution from the love of the marvellous. Of the indifferent 
nature we are speaking of, are most vulgar errors and popular su¬ 
perstitions : most, for instance, of the current reports of apparitions. 
Nothing depends upon their being true or false. But not, surely, of 
this kind vvere the alleged miracles of Christ and his apostles. 
They decided, if true, the most important question upon which the 
human mind can fix its anxiety. They claimed to regulate the 
opinions of mankind, upon subjects in which they are not only 
deeply concerned, but usually refractory and obstinate. Men could 
not be utterly careless in such a case as this. If a Jew took up the 
story, he found his darling partiality to his ovm nation and law 
wounded; if a Gentile, he found his idolatry and polytheism repro¬ 
bated and condemned. Whoever entertained the account, whether 
Jew or Gentile, could not avoid the following reflection:—‘ If these 
things be true, I must give up the opinions and principles in which 
I have been brought up, the religion in which my fathers lived and 


* ‘ There is always some truth where there are considerable particu¬ 
larities related; and they always seem to bear some proportion to one 
another. Thus, there is a great want of the particulars of time, place, 
and persons, in Manetho’s account of the Egyptian Dynasties, Ctesias’s 
of the Assyrian Kings, and those which the technical chronologers have 
given of the ancient kingdoms of Greece : and agreeably thereto, the ac¬ 
counts have much fiction and falsehood, with some truth : whereas Thu¬ 
cydides’s History of the Peloponnesian War, and Caesar’s of the War in 
Gaul, in both which particulars of time, place, and persons, are men 
tinned, are universally esteemed true to a great degree of exactness.’ 
Hartley, vol. ii. p. 109. 


L 




122 Paley's View of the 

died.’ It is not conceivable that a man should do this upon any idle 
report or frivolous account, or, indeed, without being fulJy satisfied 
and convinced of the truth and credibility of the narrative to which 
he trusted. But it did not stop at opinions. They who believed 
Christianity, acted upon it. Many made it the express business of 
their lives to publish the intelligence. It was required of those who 
admitted that intelligence, to change forthwith their conduct and 
their principles, to take up a different course of life, to part with 
their habits and gratifications, and begin a new set of rules, and 
system of behavior. The apostles, at least, were interested not to 
sacrifice their ease, their fortunes, and their lives, for an idle tale; 
multitudes besides them were induced, by the same tale, to en¬ 
counter opposition, danger, and sufferings. 

If it be said, that the mere promise of a future state would do all 
this; I answer, that the mere promise of a future state, vyithout any 
evidence to give credit or assurance to it, would do nothing. A few 
wandering fishermen talking of a resurrection of the dead, could 
produce no effect. If it be farther said, that men easily believe 
what they anxiously desire; I again answer that, in my opinion, the 
very contrary of this is nearer to the truth. Anxiety of desire, 
earnestness of expectation, the vastness of an event, rather causes 
men to disbelieve, to doubt, to dread a fallacy, to distrust, and to ex¬ 
amine. When our Lord’s resurrection was first reported to the 
apostles, they did not believe, we are told, for joy. This was natural, 
and is agreeable to experience. 

VII. We have laid out of the case those accounts which require 
no more than a simple assent; and we now also lay out of the case 
those which come merely in affirmance of opinions already formed. 
This last circumstance is of the utmost importance to notice well. It 
has long been observed, that Popish miracles happen in Popish 
countries; that they make no converts: which proves that stories 
are accepted, when they fall in with principles already fixed, with 
the public sentiments, or with the sentiments of a party already en¬ 
gaged on the side the miracle supports, which would not be at¬ 
tempted to be produced in the face of enemies, in opposition to 
reigning tenets or favorite prejudices, or when, if they be believed, 
the belief must draw men away from their preconceived and habitual 
opinions, from their modes of life and rules of action. In the former 
case, men m.ay not only receive a miraculous account, but may both act 
and suffer on the side and in the cause, which the miracle supports, 
yet not act or suffer for the miracle, but in pursuance of a prior per¬ 
suasion. The miracle, like any other argument which only confirms 
what was before believed, is admitted with little examination. In 
the moral, as in the natural world, it is change which requires a 
cause. Men are easily fortified in their old opinions, driven from 
them with great difficulty. Now how does this apply to the Chris¬ 
tian history? The miracles, theie recorded, were wrought in the 
midst of enemies, under a government, a priesthood, and a magis¬ 
tracy, decidedly and vehemently adverse to them, and to the pre¬ 
tensions which they supported. They were Protestant miracles in a 


Evidences of Christianity. 123 

Popish country; they were Popish miracles in the midst of Pro¬ 
testants. They produced a change; they established a society upon 
the spot, adhering to the belief of them; they made converts; and 
those who were converted gave up to the testimony their most fixed 
opinions and most favorite prejudices. They who acted and suffered 
in the cause, acted and suffered for the miracles: for there was no 
anterior persuasion to induce them, no prior reverence, prejudice, or 
partiality, to take hold of. Jesus had not one follower when he set 
up his claim. His miracles gave birth to his sect. No part of this 
description belongs to the ordinary evidence of Heathen or Popish 
miracles. Even most of the miracles alleged to have been per¬ 
formed by Christians, in the second and third century of its era, 
want this confirmation. It constitutes indeed a line of partition be¬ 
tween the origin and the progress of Christianity. Frauds and falla¬ 
cies might mix themselves with the progress, which could not possi¬ 
bly take place in the commencement of the religion; at least, ac¬ 
cording to any laws of human conduct that we are acquainted with. 
What should suggest to the first propagators of Christianity, espe¬ 
cially to fishermen, tax-gatherers, and husbandmen, such a thought 
as that of changing the religion of the world; what could bear them 
through the difficulties in which the attempt engaged them; what 
could procure any degree of success to the attempt; are questions 
which apply, with great force, to the setting out of the institution; 
with less, to every future stage of it. 

To hear some men talk, one would suppose the setting up of a re¬ 
ligion by miracles to be a thing of every day’s experience; whereas 
the whole current of history is against it. Hath any founder of a 
new sect amongst Christians pretended to miraculous powers, and 
succeeded by his pretensions? ‘Were these powers claimed or ex¬ 
ercised by the founders of the sects of the Waldenses and Albi- 
genses ? Did Wickliffe in England pretend to it ? Did Huss or Je¬ 
rome in Bohemia ? Did Luther in Germany, Zuinglius in Switzer¬ 
land, Calvin in France, or any of the reformers, advance this plea?”^ 
The French prophets, in the beginning of the present century,t ven¬ 
tured to allege miraculous evidence, and immediately ruined their 
cause by their temerity. ‘ Concerning the religion of ancient Rome 
of Turkey, of Siam, of China, a single miracle cannot be named, 
that was ever offered as a test of any of those religions before their 
establishment.’!: 

We may add to what has been observed of the distinction which 
we are considering, that, where miracles are alleged merely in 
affirmance of a prior opinion, they who believe the doctrine may 
sometimes propagate a belief of the miracles which they do not 
themselves entertain. This is the case of what are called pious 
frauds; but it is a case, I apprehend, which takes place solely in 
support of a persuasion already established. At least it does not 


* Campbell on Miracles, p. 120. ed. 1766. 
J Adams on Mir. p. 75. 


t The eighteenth. 



124 


Paley's View of the 

hold of the apostolical history. If the apostles did not believe the 
miracles, they did not believe the religion; and, without this belief, 
where was the piety, what place was there for any thing which 
could bear the name or color of piety, in publishing and attesting 
miracles in its behalf? If it be said that any promote the belief of 
revelation, and of any accounts which favor that belief, because 
they think them, whether well or ill founded, of public and political 
utility; I answer, that if a character exist, which can with less 
justice than another be ascribed to the founders of the Christian 
religion; it is that of politicians, or of men capable of entertaining 
political views. The truth is, that there is no assignable character 
which will account for the conduct of the apostles, supposing their 
story to be faise. If bad men, what could have induced them to 
take such pains to promote virtue ? If good men, they would not 
have gone about the country with a striiig of lies in their mouths. 

In appreciating the credit of any miraculous story, these are 
distinctions which relate to the evidence. There are other distinc¬ 
tions, of great moment in the question, which relate to the miracles 
themselves. Of which latter kind the following ought carefully to 
be retained. 

I. It is not necessary to admit as a miracle, what can be resolved 
into Si false perception. Of this nature was the demon of Socrates; 
the visions of Saint Anthony and of many others; the vision which 
Lord Herbert of Cherbury describes himself to have seen; Colonel 
Gardiner’s vision, as related in his life, written by Dr. Doddridge. 
All these may be accounted for by a momentary insanity; for the 
characteristic symptom of human madness is the rising up in the 
mind of images not distinguishable by the patient from impressions 
upon the senses.* The cases, however, in which the possibility of 
this delusion exists, are divided from the cases in which it does not 
exist, by marw, and those not obscure marks. They are, for the most 
part, cases of visions or voices. The object is hardly ever touched. 
The vision submits not to be handled. One sense does not confirm 
another. They are likewise almost always cases of a solitary wit¬ 
ness. It is in the highest degree improbable, and I know not, indeed, 
whether it hath ever been the fact, that the same derangement of 
the mental organs should seize different persons at the same time, 
a derangement, I mean, so much the same, as to represent to their 
imagination the same objects. Lastly, these are always cases of 
momentary miracles; by which term I mean to denote miracles, of 
which the whole existence is of short duration, in contradistinction 
to miracles which are attended with permanent effects. The appear¬ 
ance of a spectre, the hearing of a supernatural sound, is a moment¬ 
ary miracle. The sensible proof is gone, when the apparition or 
sound is over. But if a person bom blind be restored to sight, a 
notorious cripple to the use of his limbs, or a dead man to life, here 
is a permanent effect produced by supernatural means. The change 
indeed was instantaneous, but the proof continues. The subject of 


Batty on Lunacy. 



Evidences of Christianity. 125 , 

the miracle remains. The man cured or restored is there: his for¬ 
mer condition was known, and his present condition may be ex¬ 
amined. This can by no possibility be resolved into false percep¬ 
tion ; and of this kind are by far the greater part of the miracles 
recorded in the New Testament. When Lazarus was raised from 
the dead, he did not merely move, and speak, and die again; or 
come out of the grave, and vanish away. He returned to his home 
and family, and there continued; for we find him, some time after¬ 
ward, in the same town, sitting at table with Jesus and his sisters 5 
visited by great multitudes of the Jews, as a subject of curiosity; 
giving by his presence so much uneasiness to the Jewish rulers as 
to beget in them a design of destroying him.* No delusion can 
account for this. The French prophets in England, some time since, 
gave out that one of their teachers would come to life again ; but 
their enthusiasm never made them believe that they actually saw 
him alive. The blind man, whose restoration to sight at Jerusalem 
is recorded in the ninth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, did not quit 
the place or conceal himself from inquiry. On the contrary, he was 
forthcoming, to answer the call, to satisfy the scrutiny, and to sus¬ 
tain the brow-beating of Christ’s angry and powerful enemies 
When the cripple at the gate of the temple was suddenly cured by 
Peter,t he did not immediately relapse into his former lameness, or 
disappear out of the city; but boldly and honestly produced him¬ 
self along with the apostles, when they were brought the next day 
before the Jewish council-t Here, though the miracle was sudden, 
the proof was permanent. The lameness had been notorious, the 
cure continued. This, therefore, could not be the effect of any 
momentary delirium, either in the subject or in the witnesses of the 
transactions. It is the same with the greatest number of the Scrip¬ 
ture miracles. There are other cases of a mixed nature, in which, 
although the principal miracle be momentary, some circumstance 
combined with it» is permanent. Of this kind is the history of St. 
Paul’s conversion.^ The sudden light and sound, the vision and 
the voice, upon the road to Damascus, were momentary: but Paul’s 
blindness for three days in consequence of what had happened; 
the communication made to Ananias in another place, and by a 
vision independent of the former; Ananias finding out Paul in con¬ 
sequence of intelligence so received, and finding him in the condi¬ 
tion described, and Paul’s recovery of his sight upon Ananias’s 
laying his hands upon him; are circumstances, which take the 
transaction, and the principal miracle as included in it, entirely out 
of the case of momentary miracles, or of such as may be accounted 
for by false perceptions. Exactly the same thing may be observed 
of Peter’s vision preparatory to the call of Cornelius, and of its con¬ 
nexion with what was imparted in a distant place to Cornelius him¬ 
self, and with the message dispatched by Cornelius to Peter. The 
vision might be a dream; the message could not. Either commu- 


* John xii. 1, 2. 9, 10. 


t Acts iii. 2. 


I Ib. iv. 14. 


§ Ib. ix. 
L2 



126 


Paley's View of the 

nication, taken separately, might be a delusion; the concurrence 
of the two was impossible to happen without a supernatural cause. 

Beside the risk of delusion which attaches upon momentary mir 
acles, there is also much more room for imposture. The account 
cannot be examined at the moment; and, when that is also a mo 
ment of hurry and confusion, it may not be difficult for men of 
influence to gain credit to any story which they may wish to have 
believed. This is precisely the case of one of the best attested of 
the miracles of Old Rome, the appearance of Castor and Pollux in 
the battle fought by Posthumius with the Latins at the lake Regil- 
lus. There is no doubt but that Posthumius, after the battle, spread 
the report of such an appearance. No person could deny it whilst 
it was said to last. No person, perhaps, had any inclination to dis¬ 
pute it afterward; or, if they had, could say with positiveness, what 
was or what was not seen, by some or other of the army, in the 
dismay and amidst the tumult of a battle. 

In assigning false perceptions as the origin to which some mirac¬ 
ulous accounts may be referred, I have not mentioned claims to 
inspiration, illuminations, secret notices or directions, internal sensa¬ 
tions, or consciousness of being acted upon by spiritual influences, 
good or bad; because these, appealing to no external proof, however 
convincing they may be to the persons themselves, form no part of 
what can be accounted miraculous evidence. Their own credi¬ 
bility stands upon their alliance with other miracles. The discus¬ 
sion, therefore, of all such pretensions may be omitted. 

II. It is not necessary to bring into the comparison what may be 
called tentative miracles; that is, where, out of a great number of 
trials, some succeeded; and in the accounts of which, although the 
narrative of the successful cases be alone preserved, and that of 
the unsuccessful cases sunk, yet enough is stated to show that the 
cases produced are only a few out of many in which the same 
means have been employed. This observation bears, with consider¬ 
able force, upon the ancient oracles and auguries, in which a single 
coincidence of the event with the prediction is talked of and mag¬ 
nified, whilst failures are forgotten, or suppressed, or accounted for. 
It is also applicable to the cures wrought by relics, and at the tombs 
of saints. The boasted efficacy of the king’s touch, upon which Mr. 
Hume lays some stress, falls under the same description. Nothing 
is alleged concerning it, which is not alleged of various nostrums, 
namely, out of many thousands who have used them, certified 
proofs of a few who nave recovered after them. No solution of 
this sort is applicable to the miracles of the Gospel. There is no¬ 
thing in the narrative, which can induce, or even allows us to believe, 
that Christ attempted cures in many instances, and succeeded in a 
few; or that he ever made the attempt in vain. He did not profess 
to heal everywhere all that were sick; on the contrary, he told the 
Jews, evidently meaning to represent his own case, that, ‘although 
many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven 
was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was 
throughout all the land, yet unto none of them was Elias sent, save 


Evidences of Christianity. 127 

unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow 
and that ‘ many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the 
prophet, and none of them was cleansed save Naaman the Syrian.’* 
By which examples he gave them to understand, that it was not the 
nature of a divine interposition, or necessary to its purpose, to be 
general; still less to answer every challenge that might be made, 
which would teach men to put their faith upon these experiments, 
Christ never pronounced the word, but the effect followed.t It 
was not a thousand sick that received his benediction, and a few 
that were benefited; a single paralytic is let down in his bed at 
Jesus’s feet, in the midst of a surrounding multitude; Jesus bid him 
walk, and he did so.t A man with a withered hand is in the syna¬ 
gogue ; Jesus bid him stretch forth his hand, in the presence of the 
assembly, and it was restored ‘ whole like the other.’$ There was 
nothing tentative in these cures; nothing that can be explained by 
the power of accident 

We may observe also, that many of the cures which Christ 
wrought, such as that of a person blind from his birth, also many 
miracles beside, as raising the dead, walking upon the sea, feeding 
a great multitude with a few loaves and fishes, are of a nature 
i which does not in anywise admit of the supposition of a fortunate 
experiment. 

III. We may dismiss from the question all accounts in which, al¬ 
lowing the phenomenon to be real, the fact to be true, it still re¬ 
mains doubtful whether a miracle were wrought. This is the case 
with the ancient history of what is called the thundering legion, of 
the extraordinary circumstances which obstructed the rebuilding of 
the temple at Jerusalem by Julian, the circling of the flames and 
fragrant smell at the martyrdom of Polycarp, the sudden shower 
that extinguished the fire into which the Scriptures were thrown 
in the Diocletian persecution; Constantine’s dream; his inscribing' 
in consequence of it the cross upon his standard and the shields of 
his soldiers; his victory, and the escape of the standard-bearer 
perhaps also the imagined appearance of the cross in the heavens, 
though this last circumstance is very deficient in historical evidence. 
It is also the case with the modem annual exhibition of the lique¬ 
faction of the blood of St. Januarius at Naples. It is a doubt like¬ 
wise, which ought to be excluded by very special circumstances, 
from these narratives which relate to the supernatural cure ofhypo- 


* Luke iv. 25. 

t One, and only one, instance may be produced in which the disciples 
of Christ do seem to have attempted a cure, and not to have been able to 
perform it. The story is very ingenuously related by three of the evan¬ 
gelists.|| The patient was afterward healed by Christ himself; and 
the whole transaction seems to have been intended, as it was well 
suited, to display the superiority of Christ above all who performed mira¬ 
cles in his name, a distinction which, during his presence in the world, 
it misrht be necessary to inculcate by some such proof as this. 
t Mark ii. 3. § Matt. xii. 10. 

M Matt. xvii. 14. Mark ix. 14. Luke ix. 33. 



128 


Paley*s Vieio of the 

chondriacal and nervous complaints, and of all diseases which are 
much affected by the imagination. The miracles of the second and 
third century are, usually, healing the sick, and casting out evil 
spirits, miracles in which there is room for some error and decep¬ 
tion. We hear nothing of causing the blind to see, the lame to 
walk, the deaf to hear, the lepers to be cleansed.* There are also 
instances in Christian writers, of reputed miracles, which were 
natural operations, though not known to be such at the time; as 
that of articulate speech after the loss of a great part of the tongue. 

IV. To the same head of objection nearly, may also be referred 
accounts, in which the variation of a small circumstance may have 
transformed some extraordinary appearance, or some critical coin¬ 
cidence of events, into a miracle; stories, in a word, which may be 
resolved into exaggeration. The miracles of the Gospel can by no 
possibility be explained away in this manner. Total fiction will 
account for any thing; but no stretch of exaggeration that has any 
parallel in other histories, no force of fency upon real circumstances, 
could produce the narratives which we now have. The feeding 
of the five thousand with a few loaves and fishes surpasses all 
bounds of exaggeration. The raising of Lazarus, of the widow’s 
son at Nain, as well as many of the cures which Christ wrought, 
come not within the compass of misrepresentation. I mean, that it 
is impossible to assign any position of circumstances however pecu¬ 
liar, any accidental effects however extraordinary, any natural sin¬ 
gularity, which could supply an origin or foundation to these ac¬ 
counts. 

Having thus enumerated several exceptions, which may justly 
be taken to relations of miracles, it is necessary when we read the 
Scriptures, to bear in our minds this general remark; that, although 
there be miracles recorded in the New Testament, which fall 
within some or other of the exceptions here assigned, yet that they 
are united with others, to which none of the same exceptions ex¬ 
tend, and that their credibility stands upon this union. Thus the 
visions and revelations which Saint Paul asserts to have been im¬ 
parted to him, may not, in their separate evidence, be distinguisha¬ 
ble from the visions and revelations which many others have 
alleged. But here is the difference. Saint Paul’s pretensions were 
attested by external miracles wrought by himself, and by miracles 
wrought in the cause to which these visions relate; or, to speak 
more properly, the same historical authority which informs us of 
one, informs us of the other. This is not ordinarily true of the 
visions of enthusiasts, or even of the accounts in which they are 
contained. Again, some of Christ’s own miracles were momentary ; 
as the transfiguration, the appearance and voice from Heaven at his 
baptism, a voice from the clouds on one occasion afterward, (John 
xii. 28.) and some others. It is not denied, that the distinction 
which we have proposed concerning miracles of this species, applies. 


* Jortin’s Remarks, vol. ii. p. 51. 




Evidences of Christianity. 129 

in diminution of the force of the evidence, as much to these in¬ 
stances as to others. But this is the case, not with all the miracles 
ascribed to Christ, nor with the greatest part, nor with many. 
Whatever force therefore there may be in the objection, we have 
numerous miracles which are free from it; and even these to 
which it is applicable, are little affected by it in their credit, because 
there are few who, admitting the rest, will reject them. If there 
be miracles of the New Testament, which come within any of the 
other heads into which we have distributed the objecti,ons, the same 
remark must be repeated. And this is one way, in which the un¬ 
exampled number and variety of the miracles ascribed to Chris 
strengthens the credibility of Christianity. For it precludes any 
solution, or conjecture about a solution, which imagination, or even 
which experience, might suggest concerning some particular mira¬ 
cles, if considered independently of others. The miracles of Christ 
were of various kinds,* and performed in great varieties of situation, 
form, and manner; at Jerusalem, the metropolis of the Jewish na¬ 
tion and religion ; in different parts of Judea and Galilee; in cities 
and villages; in synagogues, in private houses; in the street, in 
highways; wdth preparation, as in the case of Lazarus; by accident, 
as in the case of the widow’s son of Nain; when attended by mul¬ 
titudes, and when alone with the patient; in the midst of his disci¬ 
ples, and in the presence of his enemies; with the common people 
around him, and before Scribes and Pharisees, and rulers of the 
synagogues. 

I apprehend that, when we remove from the comparison, the cases 
which are fairly disposed of by the observations that have been 
stated, maiw cases will not remain. To those which do remain,, we 
^Pply this final distinction; ‘that there is not satisfactory evidence, 
that persons, pretending to be original witnesses of the miracles, 
passed their lives in labors, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily 
undertaken and undergone in attestation of the accounts which 
they dehvered, and properly in consequence of their belief of the 
truth of those accounts.’ 


CHAP. II. 

But they, with whom we argue, have undoubtedly a right to 
select their own examples. The instances with which Mr; Hume 
has chosen to confront the miracles of the New Testament, and 


* Not only healing every species of disease, but turning water into 
Wine (John ii.); feeding multitudes with a few loaves and fishes (Matt. 

Luke ix. 12; John vi. 5.); walking on the sea 
(Matt. XIV. 25.); calming a storm (Matt. viii. 2fi; Luke viii. 24.); a ce¬ 
lestial voice at his baptism, and miraculous appearance (Matt. iii. 16; 
afterward John xii. 28.); his transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1—8; Mark ix. 
2; Luke ix. 28; 2 Peter i. 16, 17.); raising the dead in three distinct 
instances (Matt. ix. 18; Mark v. 22; Luke viii. 41 • Luke vii. 14; 
John XI.) 



130 


Paley's View of the 

which, therefore, we are entitled to regard as the strongest which 
the history of the world could supply to the inquiries of a very acute 
and learned adversary, are the three following: 

I. The cure of a blind and of a lame man of Alexandria, by the 
emperor Vespasian, as related by Tacitus ; 

II. The restoration of the limb of an attendant in a Spanish 
church, as told by cardinal de Retz; and, 

III. The cures said to be performed at the tomb of the abbe Paris, 
in the early part of the present century. 

I. The narrative of Tacitus is delivered in these terms: ‘One of 
the common people of Alexandria, known to be diseased in his 
eyes, by the admonition of the god Serapis, whom that superstitious 
nation worship above all other gods, prostrated himself before the 
emperor, earnestly imploring from him a remedy for his blindness, 
and entreating that he would deign to anoint with his spittle his 
cheeks and the balls of his eyes. Another, diseased in his heind, 
requested, by the admonition of the same god, that he might be 
touched by the foot of the emperor. Vespasian at first derided and 
despised their application; afterward, when they continued to urge 
their petitions, he sometimes appeared to dread the imputation of 
vanity; at other times, by the earnest supplication of the patients, 
and the persuasion of his flatterers, to be induced to hope for suc¬ 
cess. At length he commanded an inquiry to be made by the phy¬ 
sicians, whether such a blindness and debility were vincible by 
human aid. The report of the physicians contained various points; 
that in the one the power of vision was not destroyed, but would 
return if the obstacles were removed; that in the other, the dis¬ 
eased joints might be restored, if a healing power were applied; 
that it was, perhaps, agreeable to the gods to do this; that the errf- 
peror was elected by divine assistance; lastly, that the credit of the 
success would be the emperor’s, the ridicule of the disappointment 
would fall upon the patients. Vespasian, believing that every thing 
was in the power of his fortune, and that nothing was any longer 
incredible, whilst the multitude, which stood by, eagerly expected 
the event, with a countenance expressive of joy, executed what he 
was desired to do. Immediately the hand was restored to its use, 
and light returned to the blind man. They who were present relate 
both these cures, even at this time, when there is nothing to be 
gained by lying.’* 

Now, though Tacitus wrote this account twenty-seven years after 
the miracle is said to have been performed, and wrote at Rome of 
what passed at Alexandria, and wrote also from report: and although 
it does not appear that he had examined the story, or that he believed 
it (but rather the contrary), yet I think his testimony sufficient to 
prove that such a transaction took place: by which I mean, that the 
two men in question did apply to Vespasian; that Vespasian did 
touch the diseased in the manner related; and that a cure was re- 


* Tacit. Hist. lib. iv. 




Evidences of Christianity, 131 

ported to have followed the operation. But the affair labors under 
a strong and just suspicion, that the whole of it was a concerted 
imposture brought about by collusion between the patients, the phy¬ 
sician, and the emperor. This solution is probable, because there- 
was every thing to suggest, and every thing to facilitate such a 
scheme. The miracle was calculated to confer honor upon the 
emperor, and upon the god Sera pis. It was achieved in the midst 
of the emperor’s flatterers and followers; in a city, and amongst a 
populace, beforehand devoted to his interest, and to the worship of 
the god; where it would have been treason and blasphemy together, 
to have contradicted the fame of the cure, or even to have ques¬ 
tioned it And what is very observable in the account is, that the 
report of the physicians is just such a report as would have been 
made of a case, in which no external marks of the disease existed, 
and which, consequently, was capable of being easily counterfeited, 
viz. that in the first of the patients the organs of vision were not 
destroyed, that the weakness of the second was in his joints. The 
strongest circumstance in Tacitus’s narration is, that the first patient 
■was ‘ notus tabe oculorum,’ remarked or notorious for the disease in 
his eyes. But this was a circumstance which might have found its 
way into the stoiy in its progress from a distant country, and during 
an interval of thirty years; or it might be true that the malady of 
the eyes was notorious, yet that the nature and degree of the dis¬ 
ease had never been ascertained; a case by no means uncommon. 
The emperor’s reserve was easily affected; or it is possible he might 
not be in the secret. There does not seem to be much weight in 
the observation of Tacitus, that they who were present, continued 
even then to relate the story when there was nothing to be gained 
by the lie. It only proves that those who had told the story for many 
years persisted in it. The state of mind of the witnesses and spec¬ 
tators at the time, is the point to be attended to. Still less is there 
of pertinency in Mr. Hume’s eulogium on the cautious and pene¬ 
trating genius of the historian; for it does not appear that the histo¬ 
rian believed it The terms in which he speaks of Serapis, the deity 
to whose interposition the miracle was attributed, scarcely suffer us 
to suppose that Tacitus thought the miracle to be real: ‘by the 
admonition of the god Serapis, whom that superstitious nation 
(dedita superstitionibus gens) worship above all other gods.’ Ta 
have brought this supposed miracle within the limits of comparison 
with the miracles of Christ, it ought to have appeared, that a person 
of a low and private station, in the midst of enemies, with the whole 
power of the country opposing him, with every one around him 
prejudiced or interested against his claims and character, pretended 
to perform these cures, and required the spectators, upon the strength 
of what they saw, to give up their firmest hopes and opinions, and 
follow him through a life of trial and danger; that many were so 
moved, as to obey his call, at the expense both of every notion in 
which they had been brought up, and of their ease, safety, and 
reputation; and that by these beginnings, a change w'as produced 
in the world, the effects of which remain to this day: a case, both 


132 Paley's View of the 

in its circumstances and consequences, very unlike any thing we 
find in Tacitus’s relation. 

II. The story taken from the Memoirs of Cardinal de Retz, which 
is the second example alleged by Mr. Hume, is this: ‘ In the church 
of Saragossa in Spain, the canons showed me a man whose business 
it w’as to light the lamps; telling me, that he had been several years 
at the gate with one leg only. I saw him with two.'*’ 

It is stated by Mr. Hume, that the cardinal, who relates this story, 
did not believe it: and it nowhere appears, that he either examined 
the limb, or asked the patient, or indeed any one, a single question 
about the matter. An artificial leg, wrought with art, would be 
sufficient, in a place where no such contrivance had ever before 
been heard of, to give origin and currency to the report. The eccle¬ 
siastics of the place would, it is probable, favor the story, inasmuch 
as it advanced the honor of their image and church. And if they 
patronized it, no other person at Saragossa, in the middle of the last 
century, would care to dispute it. The story likewise coincided, not 
less wuth the wishes and preconceptions of the people, than with 
the interests of their ecclesiastical rulers: so that there was preju¬ 
dice backed by authority, and both operating upon extreme igno¬ 
rance, to account for the success of the imposture. If, as I have 
suggested, the contrivance of an artificial limb was then new, it 
would not occur to the cardinal himself to suspect it; especially 
under the carelessness of mind with which he heard the tale, and 
the little inclination he felt to scrutinize or expose its fallacy. 

III. The miracles related to have been wrought at the tomb of 
the abbe Paris, admit in general of this solution. The patients who 
frequented the tomb were so affected by their devotion, their ex¬ 
pectation, the place, the solemnity, and, above all, by the sympathy 
of the surrounding multitude, that many of them were thrown into 
violent convulsions, which convulsions, in certain instances, pro¬ 
duced a removal of disorders depending upon obstructions. We 
shall, at this day, have the less difficulty in admitting the above ac¬ 
count, because it is the very same thing as hath lately been expe¬ 
rienced in the operations of animal magnetism; and the report of 
the French physicians upon that mysterious remedy is very applica¬ 
ble to the present consideration, viz. that the pretenders to the art, 
by working upon the imaginations of their patients, were frequently 
able to produce convulsions; that convulsions so produced, are 
amongst the most powerful, but, at the same time, most uncertain 
and unmanageable applications to the human frame which can be 
employed. 

Circumstances, which indicate this explication in the case of the 
Parisian miracles, are the following: 

1. They were tentative. Out of many thousand sick, infirm, and 
diseased persons, who resorted to the tomb, the professed history of 
the miracles contains only nine cures. 


* Liv. iv. A. D. 1654. 



133 


Evidences of Christianity. 

2. Tlie convulsions at the tomb are admitted. 

3. The diseases were, for the most part, of that sort which de¬ 
pends upon inaction and obstruction, as dropsies, palsies, and some 
tumors. 

4. The cures were gradual; some patients attending many days, 
some several weeks, and some several months. 

5. The cures were many of them incomplete. 

6 . Others were temporary.* 

So that all the wonder we are called upon to account for, is, that, 
out of an almost innumerable multitude which resorted to the tomb 
for the cure of their complaints, and many of whom were there 
agitated by strong convulsions, a very small proportion experienced 
a beneficial change in their constitution, especially in the action of 
the nerves and glands. 

Some of the cases alleged, do not require that we should have 
recourse to this solution. The first case in the catalogue is scarcely 
distinguishable from the progress of a natural recovery. It was that 
of a young man, who labored under an inflammation of one eye, 
and had lost the sight of the other. The inflamed eye was relieved, 
but the blindness of the other remained. The inflammation had 
before been abated by medicine; and the young man, at the time 
of his attendance at the tomb, was using a lotion of laudanum. 
And, what is a still more material part of the case, the inflammation 
after some interval returned. Another case was that of a young 
man who had lost his sight by the puncture of an awl, and the dis¬ 
charge of the aqueous humor through the wound. The sight, which 
had been gradually returning, was much improved during his visit 
to the tomb, that is, probably, in the same degree in which the dis¬ 
charged humor was replaced by fresh secretions. And it is observ¬ 
able, that these two are the only cases which, from their nature, 
should seem unlikely to be affected by convulsions. 

In one material respect I allow that the Parisian miracles were 
different from those related by Tacitus, and from the Spanish mira¬ 
cle of the cardinal de Retz. They had not, like them, all the power 
and all the prejudice of the country on their side to begin with. 
They were alleged Iw one party against another, by the Jansenists 
against the Jesuits. These were of course opposed and examined 
by their adversaries. The consequence of which examination was, 
that many falsehoods were detected, that with something really 
extraordinary much fraud appeared to be mixed. And if some of 
the cases upon which designed misrepresentation could not be 
charged, were not at the time satisfactorily accounted for, it was 
becaiase the efficacy of strong spasmodic affections was not then 
sufficiently known. Finally, the cause of Jansenism did not rise by 
the miracles, but sunk, although the miracles had the anterior per¬ 
suasion of ail the numerous adherents of that cause to set out with. 


* The reader will find these particulars verified in the detail, by the 
accurate inquiries of the present bishop of Sarum, in his Criterion of 
Miracles, p. 132, &c. 


M 



134 Paley's View of the 

These, let us remember, are the strongest examples, which the 
history of ages supplies. In none of them was the miracle unequivo^ 
cal ; by none of them, were established prejudices and persuasions 
overthrown; of none of them, did the credit make its way, in oppo¬ 
sition to authority and power; by none of them, were many induced 
to commit themselves, and that in contradiction to prior opinions, to 
a life of mortification, danger, and sufferings; none were called 
upon to attest them, at the expense of their fortunes and safety.* 


* It may be thought that the historian of the Parisian miracles, M. 
Montgerou, forms an exception to this last assertion. He presented his 
book (with a suspicion, as it should seem, of the danger of what he was 
doing) to the king; and was shortly afterward committed to prison, from 
which he never came out. Had the miracles been unequivocal, and had 
M. Montgeron been originally convinced by them, I should have allowed 
this exception. It would have stood, I think, alone, in the argument of 
our adversaries. But, beside what has been observed of the dubious na¬ 
ture of the miracles, the account which M. Montgeron has himself left 
of his conversion, shows both the state of his mind, and that his persua¬ 
sion was not built upon external miracles. —‘ Scarcely had he entered the 
churchyard, when he was struck (he tells us) with awe and reverence, 
having never before heard prayers pronounced with so much ardor and 
transport as he observed amongst the supplicants at the tomb. Upon 
this, throwing himself on his knees, resting his elbows on the tomb-stone, 
and covering his face with his hands, he spake the following prayer:— 
O thou by whose intercession so many miracles are said to be performed, if it 
he true that a part of thee surviveth the grave, and that thou hast influence 
with the Mmighty, have pity on the darkness of my understanding, and 
through his mercy obtain the removal of it.' Having thus prayed, ‘many 
thoughts (as he saith) began to open themselves to his mind ; and so pro¬ 
found was his attention, that he continued on his knees four hours, 
not in the least disturbed by the vast crowd of surrounding supplicants. 
During this time, all the arguments which he ever heard or read in favor 
of Christianity, occurred to him with so much force, and seemed so strong 
and convincing, that he went home fully satisfied of the truth of religion 
in general, and of the holiness and power of that person, who (as he sup¬ 
posed) had engaged the Divine Goodness to enlighten his understanding 
so suddenly.’ Douglas’s Grit, of Mir. p. 214. 



PART II. 

OF THE AUXILIARY EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY 


CHAP. 1. 

Prophecy. 

Isaiah lii. 13. liii. ‘ Behold, my Servant shall deal prudently; he 
shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. As many as were 
astonished at thee (his visage was so marred more than any man, 
and his form more than the sons of men); so shall he sprinkle many 
nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which 
had not been told them, shall they see; and that which they had 
not heard, shall they consider.—Who hath believed our report? and 
to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed ? For he shall grow up 
before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground : he 
hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is 
no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected 
of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid, 
as it were, our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed 
him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: 
yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. But 
he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our ini¬ 
quities : the chastisement of our peace was upon him ,* and with his 
stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we 
have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on 
him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, 
yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaugh¬ 
ter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not 
his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment; and who 
shall declare his generation ? for he was cut off out of the land of 
the living: for the transgression of my people, was he stricken. 
And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his 
death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in 
his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him 
to grief When thou shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall 
see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord 
shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, 
and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant 
justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I 
divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil 
with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death; 
and he was numbered with the transgressors, and he bare the sin 
of many and made intercession for the transgressors.’ 




136 


Paley's View of the 

These words are extant in a book, purporting to contain the pre¬ 
dictions of a writer who lived seven centuries before the Christian 
era. 

That material part of every argument from prophecy, namely, that 
the words alleged were actually spoken or written before the fact 
to which they are applied took place, or could by any natural means 
be foreseen, is, in the present instance, incontestable. The record 
comes out of the custody of adversaries. The Jews, as an ancient 
father well observed, are our librarians. The passage is in their 
copies, as well as in ours. With many attempts to explain it away, 
none has ever been made by them to discredit its authenticity. 

And, what adds to the force of the quotation is, that it is taken 
from a writing declaredly prophetic ; a writing, professing to describe 
such future transactions and changes in the world, as were con¬ 
nected with the fate and interests of the Jewish nation. It is not 
a passage in an historical or devotional composition, which, because 
it turns out to be applicable to some future events, or to some future 
situation of affairs, is presumed to have been oracular. The words 
of Isaiah were delivered by him in a prophetic character, with the 
solemnity belonging to that character: and what he so delivered, 
was all along understood by the Jewish reader to refer to something 
that was to take place after the time of the author. The public 
sentiments of the Jews concerning the design of Isaiah’s writings, 
are set forth in the book of Ecclesiasticus :* ‘ He saw by an excel¬ 
lent spirit, what should come to pass at the last, and he comforted 
them that mourned in Sion. He showed what should come to pass 
for ever, and secret things or ever they came.’ 

It is also an advantage w'hich this prophecy possesses, that it is 
intermixed with no other subject. It is entire, separate, and unin¬ 
terruptedly directed to one scene of things. 

The application of the prophecy to the evangelic history is plain 
and appropriate. Here is no double sense; no figurative language, 
but what is sufficiently intelligible to every reader of every country. 
The obscurities (by which I mean the expressions that require a 
knowledge of local diction, and of local allusion) are few, and not 
of great importance. Nor have I found that varieties of reading, or 
a different construing of the original, produce any material alteration 
in the sense of the prophecy. Compare the common translation 
with that of bishop Lowth, and the difference is not considerable. 
So far as they do differ, bishop Lowth’s corrections, which are the 
faithful result of an accurate examination, bring the description 
nearer to the New Testament history than it was before. In the 
fourth verse of the fifty-third chapter, what our Bible renders 
‘stricken,’ he translates ‘judicially stricken:’ and in the eighth 
verse, the clause, ‘ he was taken from prison and from judgment,’ 
the bishop gives, ‘ by an oppressive judgment he was taken off’ 
The next words to these, ‘who shall declare his generation?’ are 
much cleared up in their meaning by the bishop’s version; ‘ his 


* Chap, xlviii. ver. 24. 



Evidences of Christianity. 137 

manner of life who would declare V i. e. who w'ould stand forth 
in his defence ? The former part of the ninth verse, ‘ and he made 
his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death,’ which 
inverts the circumstances of Christ’s passion, the bishop brings out in 
>an order perfectly agreeable to the event; ‘and his grave was ap¬ 
pointed with the w icked, but with the rich man was his tomb.’ The 
words in the eleventh verse, ‘ by his knowledge shall my righteous 
servant justify many,’ are, in the bishop’s version, ‘ by the knowledge 
of him shall my righteous servant justify many.’ 

It is natural to inquire what turn the Jews themselves give to 
this prophecy.* There is good proof that the ancient Rabbins 
explained it of their expected Messiah ;t but their modern exposi¬ 
tors concur, I think, in representing it as a description of the calami¬ 
tous state and intended restoration of the Jewish people, who are 
here, as they say, exhibited under the character of a single person. 
I have not discovered that their exposition rests upon any critical 
arguments, or upon these in any other than a very minute degree. 
The clause in the ninth verse, which we render ‘for the transgres¬ 
sion of my people was he stricken,’ and in the margin, ‘ was the 
stroke upon him,’ the Jews read, ‘for the transgression of my people 
was the stroke upon them' And what they allege in support of the 
alteration amounts only to this, that the Hebrew pronoun is capable 
of a plural as well as of a singular signification; that is to say, is 
capable of their construction as well as ours.J And this is all the 


* ‘.Vaticinium hoc Esaise est carnincina Rabbinorum, do quo aliqiii 
Jud®i miiii confess! sunt, Rabbinos suos ex propheticis scripturis facilS 
se extricare potuisse, modo Esias tacuisset.' Hulse, Theo). Jud. p. 318, 
quoted by Poole, in loc. 

t Hulse, Theol. Jud. 430. 

I Bishop Lowth adopts in this place the reading of the Seventy, which 
gives smitten to death, ‘ for the transgression of my people was he smitten 
to death.’ The addition of the words ‘ to death,’ makes an end of the 
Jewish interpretation of the clause. And the authority upon which this 
reading (though not given by the present Hebrew text) is adopted. Dr. 
Kennicot has set forth by an argument not only so cogent, but so clear 
and popular, that I beg leave to transcribe the substance of it into this 
note;—‘ Origen, after having quoted at large this prophecy concerning 
the Messiah, tells us, that, having once made use of this passage, in a 
dispute against some that were accounted wise among the Jews, one of 
them replied that the words did not mean one man, but one people, the 
Jews, who were smitten of God, and dispersed among the Gentiles for 
their conversion ; that he then urged many parts of this prophecy, tc 
show the absurdity of this interpretation, and that he seemed to press 
them the hardest by this sentence,—“for the transgression of my people 
was he smitten to death.” Now, as Origen, the author of the Hexa- 
pla, must have.understood Hebrew, we cannot suppose that he would 
have urged this last text as so decisive, if the Greek version had not 
agreed here with the Hebrew text; nor that these wise Jews would have 
been at all distressed by this quotation, unless the Hebrew text had read 
agreeably to the words “ to death,” on which the argument principally 
depended; for, by quoting it immediately, they would have triumphed 
over him, and reprobated his Greek version. This, whenever they could 

M2 



138 Paleyh View of the 

variation contended for; the rest of the prophecy they read ^ we 
do. The probability, therefore, of their exposition, is a subject of 
which we are as capable of judging as themselves. This judgment 
is open indeed to the good sense of every attentive reader. The 
application which the Jews contend for, appears to me to labor 
under insuperable difficulties ; in particular, it may be demanded 
of them to explain, in whose name or person, if the Jewish people 
be the sufferer, does the prophet speak when he says, ‘ He hath 
borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows, yet we did esteem him 
stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted; but he was wounded for 
our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastise¬ 
ment of our peace was upon him, and wdth his stripes we are 
healed.’ Again, the description in the seventh verse, ‘ he was op¬ 
pressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is 
Drought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her 
shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth,’ quadrates with no 
part of the Jewish history with which we are acquainted. The 
mention of the ‘ grave,’ and the ‘ tomb,’ in the ninth verse, is not 
very applicable to the fortunes of a nation; and still less so is the 
conclusion of the prophecy in the twelfth verse, which expressly 
represents the sufferings as voluntary, and the sufferer as interced[- 
ing for the offenders; ‘ because he hath poured out his soul unto 
death, and he was numbered with the transgressors, and he bare 
the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.’ 

There are other prophecies of the Old Testament, interpreted by 
Christians to relate to the Gospel history, which are deserving 
both of great regard, and of a very attentive consideration: but I 
content myself with stating the above, as well because I think it 
the clearest and the strongest of all, as because most of the rest, in 
order that their value might be represented with any tolerable de¬ 
gree of fidelity, require a discussion unsuitable to the limits and 
nature of this work. The reader wdll find them disposed in order, 
and distinctly explained, in bishop Chandler’s treatise on the sub¬ 
ject : and he will bear in mind, what has been often, and, I think, 
truly, urged by the advocates of Christianity, that there is no other 
eminent person, to the history of whose life so many circumstances 
can be made to apply. They who object that much has been done 
by the power of chance, the ingenuity of accommodation, and the 
industry of research, ought to try whether the same, or any thing 


do it, was their constant practice in their disputes with the Christians. 
Origen himself, who laboriously compared the Hebrew text with the Sep- 
tuagint, has recorded the necessity of arguing with the Jews, from such 
passages only as were in the Septuagint agreeable to the Hebrew. 
Wherefore, as Origen had carefully compared the Greek version of the 
Septuagint with the Hebrew text; and as he puzzled and confounded 
the learned Jews, by urging upon them the reading “ to death,” in this 
place; it seems almost impossible not to conclude, both from Origen’s 
argument, and the silence of his Jewish adversaries, that the Hebrew 
text at that time actually had the word agreeably to the version of the 
Seventy ’ Lowth’s Isaiah, p. 242. 



Evidences of Christianity. 139 

like it, could be done, if Mahomet, or any other person, were pro¬ 
posed as the subject of Jewish prophecy. 

II. A second head of argument from prophecy, is founded upon 
our Lord’s predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem re¬ 
corded by three out of the four evangelists. ’ 

Luke xxi. 5—25. ‘ And as some spake of the temple, how it was 
a(iorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, As for these things 
which ye behold, the days will come, in which there shall not be 
left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. And 
they asked him, saying. Master, but when shall these things be ? 
and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass ? 
And he said. Take heed that ye be not deceived, for many shall 
come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: 
go ve therefore not after them. But when ye shall hear of wars 
and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must first come to 
pass; but the end is not by-and-by. Then said he unto them, Na¬ 
tion shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and 
great earthquakes shall be in divers places, and famines and pesti¬ 
lences ; and fearful sights, and great signs shall there be from heaven. 
But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and perse¬ 
cute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, be¬ 
ing brought before kings and rulers for my name’s sake. And it 
shall turn to you for a testimony. Settle it therefore in your hearts, 
not to meditate before, what ye shall answer: for I will give you a 
mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to 
gainsay nor resist. And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and 
brethren, and kinsfolk, and friends; and some of you shall they 
cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my 
name’s sake. But there shall not a hair of your head perish. In your 
patience possess ye your souls. And when ye shall see Jerusalem 
compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is 
nigh. Then let theni which are in Judea flee to the mountains; and 
let them which are in the midst of it depart out: and let not them 
that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of 
vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But 
woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in 
those days : for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath 
upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and 
shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be 
trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be 
fulfilled.’ 

In terms nearly similar, this discourse is related in the twenty- 
fourth chapter of Matthew, and the thirteenth of Mark. The pros¬ 
pect of the same evils drew from our Saviour, on another occasion, 
the following affecting expressions of concern, which are preserved 
by Saint Luke (xix. 41—44.): ‘And when he was come near, he be- 
Imld the city, and wept over it, saying. If thou hadst knowm, even 
thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy 
peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall 
come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, 


140 Paley's View of the 

and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall 
lay thee even with the ground, and thy children wdthin thee; and 
they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou 
knevvest not the lime of thy visitation.’—These passages are direct 
and explicit predictions. References to the same event, some plain, 
some parabolical, or otherwise figurative, are found in divers other 
discourses of our Lord.* * * § 

The general agreement of the description with the event, viz 
with the ruin of the Jewish nation, and the capture of Jerusalem 
under Vespasian, thirty-six years after Christ’s death, is most evi¬ 
dent ; and the accordancy in various articles of detail and circum¬ 
stances has been shown by many learned writers. It is also an ad¬ 
vantage to the inquiry, and to the argument built upon it, that we 
have received a copious account of the transaction from Josephus, 
a Jewish and contemporary historian. This part of the case is per¬ 
fectly free from doubt. The only question which, in my opinion, 
can be raised upon the subject, is whether the prophecy was really 
delivered before the event; I shall apply, therefore, my observations 
to this point solely. 

1. The judgment of antiquity, though varying in the precise year 
of the publication of the three Gospels, concurs in assigning them a 
date prior to the destruction of Jerusalem t 

2. This judgment is confirmed by a strong probability arising 
from the course of human life. The destruction of Jerusalem took 
place in the seventieth year after the birth of Christ. The three 
evangelists, one of whom was his immediate companion, and the 
other two associated with his companions, were, it is probable, not 
much younger than he was. They must, consequently, have been 
far advanced in life when Jerusalem was taken; and no reason has 
been given why they should defer writing their histories so long. 

3. JIf the evangelists, at the time of writing the Gospels, had 
known of the destruction of Jerusalem, by which catastrophe the 
prophecies were plainly fulfilled, it is most probable, that, in record¬ 
ing the predictions, they would have dropped some word or other 
about the completion; in like manner as Luke, after relating the 
denunciation of a dearth by Agabus, adds, ‘ which came to pass in 
the days of Claudius Ccesar whereas the prophecies are given 
distinctly in one chapter of each of the first three Gospels, and re¬ 
ferred to in several different passages of each, and, in none of all 
these places, does there appear the smallest intimation that the 
things spoken of had come to pass. I do admit, that it would have 
been the part of an impostor, who wished his readers to believe 
that his book was written before the event, when in truth it was 
written after it, to have suppressed any such intimation carefully. 
But this was not the character of the authors of the Gospel. Cun- 


* Matt. xxi. 33—46. xxii 1—7. Mark xii. 1—12. Luke xiii. 1—9. xs. 

9—20 xxi. 0—13. t Lardner, vol. xiii. 

1 Le Clerc, Diss. 111. de Quat. Evang. num. vii. p. 541. 

§ Acts xi. 28. 



Evidences of Christianity. 141 

ning was no quality of theirs. Of all writers in the world, they 
thought the least of providing against objections. Moreover, there is 
no clause in any one of them, that makes a profession of their 
having written prior to the Jewish wars, which a fraudulent pur¬ 
pose would have led them to pretend. They have done neither 
one thing nor the other: they have neither inserted any words 
which might signify to the reader that their accounts were written 
before the destruction of Jerusalem, which a sophist would have 
done; nor have they dropped a hint of the completion of the prophe¬ 
cies recorded by them, which an wndesigning writer, writing after 
the event, could hardly, on some or other of the many occasions 
that presented themselves, have missed of doing. 

4. The admonitions* which Christ is represented to have given 
to his followers to save themselves by flight, are not easily ac¬ 
counted for, on the supposition of the prophecy being fabricated 
after the event. Either the Christians, when the siege approached, 
did make their escape from Jerusalem, or they did not: if they did, 
they must have had the prophecy amongst them: if they did not 
know of any such prediction at the time of the siege, if they did 
not take notice of any such warning, it was an improbable fiction, 
in a writer publishing his work near to that time (which, on any, 
even the lowest and most disadvantageous supposition, was the case 
with the Gospels now in our hands), and addressing his works to 
Jews and to Jewish converts (which Matthew certainly did), to state 
that the followers of Christ had received admonition, of which they 
made no use when the occasion arrived, and of which experience 
then recent proved, that those, who were most concerned to know 
and regard them, were ignorant or negligent. Even if the prophe¬ 
cies came to the hands of the evangelists through no better vehicle 
than tradition, it must have been by a tradition which subsisted 
prior to the event. And to suppose that, without any authority 
whatever, without so much as even any tradition to guide them, 
they had forged these passages, is to impute to them a degree of 
fraud and imposture, from e very appearance of which their compo¬ 
sitions are as far removed as possible. 

5. I think that, if the prophecies had been composed after the 
even^ there would have been more specification. The names or 
descriptions of the enemy, the general, the emperor, would have 
been found in them. The designation of the time would have been 
more determinate. And I am fortified in this opinion by observing, 
that the counterfeited prophecies of the Sibylline oracles, of the 
twelve patriarchs, and I am inclined to believe, most others of the 


* ‘ When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know 
that the desolation thereof is nigh; then let them which are in Judea flee 
to the mountains; then let them which are in the midst of it depart out, 
and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.’ Luke xxi.20,21. 

‘When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then let them 
which be in Judea flee unto the mountains; let him which is on the house¬ 
top not come down to take any thing out of his house ; neither let him 
which is in the field return back to take his clothes.’ Matt. xiv. 18. 



142 Paley's View of the 

kind, are mere transcripts of the history, moulded into a prophetic 
form. 

It is objected, that the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem 
is mixed, or connected, with expressions which relate to the final 
judgment of the world ; and so connected, as to lead an ordinary 
reader to expect, that these two events would not be far distant 
from each other. To which I answer, that the objection does not 
concern our present argument. If our Saviour actually foretold the 
destruction of Jerusalem, it is sufficient; even although we should 
allow, that the narration of the prophecy had combined what had 
been said by him on kindred subjects, without accurately preserv¬ 
ing the order, or always noticing the transition of the discourse. 


CHAP. IT. 

The Morality of the Gospel. 

In stating the morality of the Gospel as an argument of its truth, 
I am willing to admit two points ; first, that the teaching of morality 
was not the primary design of the mission; secondly, that morality, 
neither in the Gospel, nor in any other book, can be a subject, prop¬ 
erly speaking, of discovery. 

If I were to describe in a veiy few words the scope of Christianity, 
as a revelation,* I should say, that it was to influence the conduct of 
human life, by establishing the proof of a future state of reward and 
punishment,—‘ to bring life and immortality to light.’ The direct 
object, therefore, of the design is, to supply motives, and not rules; 
sanctions, and not precepts. And these were what mankind stood 
most in need of The members of civilized society can, in all ordi¬ 
nary cases, judge tolerably well how they ought to act: but with¬ 
out a future state, or, which is the same thing, without credited 
evidence of that state, they want a motive to their duty ; they want 
at least strength of motive, sufficient to bear up against the force of 
passion, and the temptation of present advantage. Their rules 
want authority. The most important service that can be rendered 


* Great and inestimably beneficial effects may accrue from the mission 
of Christ, and especially from his death, which do not belong to Chris¬ 
tianity as a revelation ; that is, they might have existed, and they might 
have been accomplished, though we had never, in this life, been made 
acquainted with them. These effects may be very extensive : they may 
be interesting even to other orders of intelligent beings. I think it is a 
general opinion, and one to which I have long come, that the beneficial 
effects of Christ’s death extend to the whole human species. It was the 
redemption of the world. ‘ He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for 
ours only, but for the whole world 1 John ii. 2. Probably the future 
happiness, perhaps the future existence of the species, and more gracious 
terms of acceptance extended to all, might depend upon it, or be procured 
by it. Now these effects, whatever they be, do not belong to Chris¬ 
tianity as a revelation; because they exist with respect to those to whom 
it is not revealed. 



Evidences of Christianity. 143 

to human life, and that consequently, which, one might expect be¬ 
forehand, would be the great end and office of a revelation from 
God, is to convey to the world authorized assurances of the reality 
of a future existence. And although in doing this, or by the min¬ 
istry of the same person by whom this is done, moral precepts or 
examples, or illustrations of moral precepts, may be occasionally 
given, and be highly valuable, yet still they do not form the original 
purpose of the mission. 

Secondly; morality, neither in the Gospel, nor in any other book, 
can be a subject of discovery, properly so called. By which propo¬ 
sition, I mean that there cannot, in morality, be any thing similar to 
what are called discoveries in natural philosophy, in the arts of life, 
and in some sciences ; as the system of the universe, the circulation 
of the blood, the polarity of the magnet, the laws of gravitation, 
alphabetical writing, decimal arithmetic, and some other things of 
the same sort; facts, or proofs, or contrivances, before totally un 
known and unthought of. Whoever, therefore, expects, in reading 
the New Testament, to be struck with discoveries in morals in the 
manner in which his mind was affected when he first came to the 
knowledge of the discoveries above-mentioned; or rather in the 
manner in which the world was affected by them, when they were 
first published; expects what, as I apprehend, the nature of the 
subject renders it impossible that he should meet with. And the 
foundation of my opinion is this, that the qualities of actions depend 
entirely upon their effects, which effects must all along have been 
the subject of human experience. 

When it is once settled, no matter upon what principle, that to do 
good is virtue, the rest is calculation. But since the calculation 
cannot be instituted concerning each particular action, we estab¬ 
lish intermediate rules; by which proceeding, the business of mo¬ 
rality is much facilitated, for then it is concerning our rules alone 
that we need inquire, whether in their tendency they be beneficial; 
concerning our actions, we have only to ask, whether they be agree¬ 
able to the rules. We refer actions to rules, and rules to public 
happiness. Now, in the formation of these rules, there is no place 
for discovery, properly so called, but there is ample room for the ex¬ 
ercise of w’isdom, judgment, and prudence. 

As I wish to deliver argument rather than panegyric, I shall treat 
of the morality of the Gospel, in subjection to these observations. 
And after all, I think it such a morality, as, considering from whom 
it came, is most extraordinary ; and such as, without allowing some 
degree of reality to the character and pretensions of the religion, it 
is difficult to account for; or, to place the argument a little lower 
in the scale, it is such a morality as completely repels the supposi¬ 
tion of its being the tradition of a barbarous age or of a barbarous 
f>eople, of the religion being founded in folly, or of its being the 
production of craft; and it repels also, in a great degree, the sup)- 
position of its having been the effusion of an enthusiastic mind. 

The division, under which the subject may be most conveniently 
treated, is that of the things taught, and the manner of teaching. 


144 


Paley^s View of the 

Under the first head, I should willingly, if the limits and nature 
of my work admitted of it, transcribe into this chapter the whole of 
what has been said upon the morality of the Gospel, by the author 
of The Interval Evidence of Christianily; because it perfectly 
agrees with my own opinion, and because it is impossible to say the 
same things so well. This acute observer of human nature, and, as 
I believe, sincere convert to Christianity, appears to me to have 
made out satisfactorily the two following positions, viz. 

I. That the Gospel omits some qualities, which have usually en¬ 
gaged the praises and admiration of mankind, but which, in reality, 
and in their general effects, have been prejudicial to human happi¬ 
ness. 

II. That the Gospel has brought forward some virtues, w'hich 
possess the highest intrinsic value, but which have commonly been 

verlooked and contemned. 

The first of these propositions he exemplifies in the instances of 
friendship, patriotism, active courage ; in the sense in which these 
qualities are usually understood, and in the conduct which they 
often produce. 

The second, in the instances of passive courage or endurance of 
sufferings, patience under affronts and injuries, humility, irresist- 
ance, placability. 

The truth is, there are two opposite descriptions of character, un¬ 
der which mankind may generally be classed. The one possesses 
vigor, firmness, resolution ; is daring and active, quick in its sensi¬ 
bilities, jealous of its fame, eager in its attachments, inflexible in its 
purpose, violent in its resentments. 

The other, meek, yielding, complying, forgiving; not prompt to 
act, but willing to suffer ; silent and gentle under rudeness and in¬ 
sult, suing for reconciliation where others would demand satisfac¬ 
tion, giving way to the pushes of impudence, conceding and indul¬ 
gent to the prejudices, the wrongheadedness, the intractability, of 
those with whom it has to deal. 

The former of these characters is, and ever hath been, the favorite 
of the world. It is the character of great men. There is a dignity 
in it which universally commands respect. 

The latter is poor-spirited, tame, and abject. Yet so it hath hap¬ 
pened, that, wdth the Founder of Christianity, this latter is the sub¬ 
ject of his commendation, his precepts, his examples; and that the 
former is so, in no part of its composition. This and nothing else, is 
the character designed in the following remarkable passages: ‘ Re¬ 
sist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, 
turn to him the other also : and if any man will sue thee at the law, 
and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also: and whosoever 
shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain: love your ene¬ 
mies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and 
pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you.’ This 
certainly is not common-place morality. It is very original. It 
shows at least (and it is for this purpose we produce it) that no two 


Evidences of Christianity. 145 

things can be more different than the Heroic and the Christian 
character. 

Now the author, to whom I refer, has not only marked this differ¬ 
ence more strongly than any preceding writer, but has proved, in 
contradiction to first impressions, to popular opinion, to the encomi¬ 
ums of orators and poets, and even to the suffrages of historians and 
moralists, that the latter character possesses the most of true worth, 
both as being most difficult either to be acquired or sustained, and 
as contributing most to the happiness and tranquillity of social life. 
The state of his argument is as follows: 

I. If this disposition were universal, the case is clear; the worl 
would be a society of friends. Whereas, if the other disposition 
were universal, it would produce a scene of universal contention. 
The world could not hold a generation of such men. 

II. If, what is the fact, the disposition be partial; if a few be 
actuated by it, amongst a multitude who are not; in whatever de¬ 
gree it does prevail, in the same proportion it prevents, allays, and 
terminates, quarrels, the great disturbers of human happiness, and 
the great sources of human misery, so far as man’s happiness and 
misery depend upon man. Without this disposition, enmities must 
not only be frequent, but, once begun, must be eternal: for, each 
retaliation being a fresh injury, and, consequently, requiring a fresh 
satisfaction, no period can be assigned to the reciprocation of af¬ 
fronts, and to the progress of hatred, but that which closes the 
lives, or at least the intercourse, of the parties. 

I would only add to these observations, that although the former 
of the two characters above described may be occasionally useful; 
although, perhaps, a great general, or a great statesman, may be 
formed by it, and these may be instruments of important benefits to 
mankind, yet is this nothing more than what is true of many quali¬ 
ties, which are acknowledged to be vicious. Envy is a quality of 
this sort; I know not a stronger stimulus to exertion; many a scholar, 
many an artist, many a soldier, has been produced by it; neverthe¬ 
less, since in its general effects it is noxious, it is properly condemned, 
certainly is not praised, by sober moralists. 

It was a portion of the same character as that we are defending, 
or rather of his love of the same character, which our Saviour dis¬ 
played, in his repeated correction of the ambition of his disciples; 
his frequent admonitions, that greatness with them was to consist in 
humility; his censure of that love of distinction, and greediness of 
superiority, which the chief persons amongst his countrymen were 
wont, on all occasions, great and little, to betray. ‘ They (the Scribes 
and Pharisees) love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief 
seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be 
called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is 
your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren; and call no man 
your father upon the earth, for one is your Father, which is in hea¬ 
ven; neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even 
Christ; but he that is greatest among you, shall be your servant; 
and whosoever shall exalt himself, shall be abased; and he that 

N 


146 Paleifs View of the 

shall humble himself, shall be exalted.’* I make no farther remark 
upon these passages (because they are, in truth, only a repetition of 
the doctrine, different expressions of the principle, which we have 
already stated), except that some of the passages, especially our 
Lord’s advice to the guests at an entertainment,! seem to extend the 
rule to what we call manners; which was both regular in point of 
consistency, and not so much beneath the dignity of our Lord’s mis¬ 
sion as may at first sight be supposed, for bad manners are bad 
morals. 

It is sufficiently apparent, that the precepts we have cited, or 
rather the disposition which these precepts inculcate, relate to per¬ 
sonal conduct from personal motives; to cases in which men act 
from impulse, for themselves, and from themselves. When it comes 
to be considered, what is necessary to be done for the sake of the 
public, and out of a regard to the general welfare (which considera¬ 
tion, for the most part, ought exclusively to govern the duties of men 
in public stations), it comes to a case to which the rules do not 
belong. This distinction is plain ; and if it were less so, the conse¬ 
quence would not be much felt: for it is very seldom that, in the 
intercourse of private life, men act with public views. The per¬ 
sonal motives, from which they do act, the rule regulates. 

The preference of the patient to the heroic character, which we 
have here noticed, and which the reader will find explained at large 
in the wdfk to which we have referred him, is a peculiarity in the 
Christian institution, which I propiose as an argument of wisdom 
very much beyond the situation and natural character of the person 
who delivereci it. 

II. A second argument, drawn from the morality of the New' Tes¬ 
tament, is the stress which is laid by our Saviour upon the regula¬ 
tion of the thoughts. And I place this consideration next to the 
other, because they are connected. The other related to the mali¬ 
cious passions; this, to the voluptuous. Together, they comprehend 
the whole character. 

‘Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, for¬ 
nications,’ &c.—‘ These are the things which defile a man.’t 

‘ Woe unto you. Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make 
clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are 
full of extortion and excess.—Ye are like unto whited sepulchres, 
which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead 
men’s bones, and of all uncleanness; even so ye also outwardly 
appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and 
iniquity.’^ 

And more particularly that strong expression,]] ‘ Whosoever look- 
eth on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her 
already in his heart’ 

There can be no doubt, with any reflecting mind, but that the 


* Matt, xxiii. 6. See also Mark xii. 39. Luke xx. 46; xiv. 7. 
t Luke xiv. 7. J Matt. xv. 19. 

§ Matt, xxiii. 25.27. Jl Matt. v. 28. 



Evidences of Christianity. 147 

propensities of our nature must be subject to regulation ,* but the 
question is, where the check ought to be placed, upon the thought, 
or only upon the action? In this question, our Saviour, in the texts 
here quoted, has pronounced a decisive judgment. He makes the 
control of thought essential. Internal purity with him is every 
thing. Now I contend that this is the only discipline which can 
succeed; in other words, that a moral system, which prohibits 
actions, but leaves the thoughts at liberty, will be ineffectual, and 
is therefore unwise. I know not how to go about the proof of a 
point, which depends upon experience, and upon a knowledge of 
the human constitution, better than by citing the judgment of per¬ 
sons, who appear to have given great attention to the subject, and 
to be well qualified to form a true opinion about it. Boerhaave, 
speaking of this very declaration of our Saviour, ‘ Whosoever look- 
eth on a wonian to lust after her, hath already committed adultery 
with her in his heart,’ and understanding it, as we do, to contain an 
injunction to lay the check upon the thoughts, was wont to say, that 
‘ our Saviour knew mankind better than Socrates.’ Haller, who has 
recorded this saying of Boerhaave, adds to it the following remarks 
of his own :* ‘ It did not escape the observation of our Saviour, that 
the rejection of any evil thoughts was the best defence against 
vice: for when a debauched person fills his imagination with im¬ 
pure pictures, the licentious ideas which he recalls, foil not to stimu¬ 
late his desires with a degree of violence which he cannot resist. 
This will be followed by gratification, unless some external obstacle 
should prevent him from the commission of a sin, which he had 
internally resolved on.’ ‘Every moment of time,’ says our author, 
‘ that is spent in meditations upon sin, increases the power of the 
dangerous object which has possessed our imagination.’ I suppose 
these reflections will be generally assented to. 

III. Thirdly, Had a teacher of morality been asked concerning a 
general principle of conduct, and for a short rule of life; and had 
he instructed the person who consulted him, ‘ constantly to refer his 
actions to what he believed to be the will of his Creator, and con¬ 
stantly to have in view not his own interest and gratification alone, 
but the happiness and comfort of those about him,’ he would have 
been thought, I doubt not, in any age of the world, and in any, even 
the most improved, state of morals, to have delivered a judicious 
a,nswer; because, by the first direction, he suggested the only mo¬ 
tive which acts steadily and uniformly, in sight and out of sight, in 
familiar occurrences and under pressing temptations; and in the 
second, he corrected what, of all tendencies in the human charac¬ 
ter, stands most in need of correction, selfishness, or a contempt of 
other men’s conveniency and satisfaction. In estimating the value 
of a moral rule, we are to have regard not only to the particular 
duty, but the general spirit; not only to what it directs us to do, but 
to the character which a compliance with its direction is likely to 


* Letters to his Daughter. 




148 


Paley^s View of the 

form in us. So, in the present instance, the rule here recited will 
never fail to make him who obeys it consideraie, not only of the 
rights, but of the feelings of other men, bodily and mental, in great 
matters and in small; of the ease, the accommodation, the self-corn 
placency, of all with whom he has any concern, especially of all 
who are in his power, or dependent upon his will. 

Now what, in the most applauded philosopher of the most en¬ 
lightened age of the world, would have deemed worthy of his wis¬ 
dom, and of his character, to say, our Saviour hath said, and upon 
just such an occasion as that which we have, feigned. 

‘ Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, 
tempting him, and saying. Master, which is the great commandment 
in the law ? Jesus said unto him. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind ; 
this is the first and great commandment; and the second is like unto 
it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: on these two command¬ 
ments hang all the law and the prophets.’* 

The second precept occurs in Saint Matthew (xix. 16.) on another 
occasion similar to this; and both of them, on a third similar occa¬ 
sion, in Luke (x. 27.) In these two latter instances, the question pro¬ 
posed was, ‘ What shall I do to inherit eternal life V 

Upon all these occasions, I consider the words of our Saviour as 
expressing precisely the same thing as what I have put into the 
mouth of the moral philosopher. Nor do I think that it detracts 
much from the merit of the answer, that these precepts are extant 
in the Mosaic code; for his laying his finger, if I may so say, upon 
these precepts; his drawing them out from the rest of that volumin 
ous institution; his stating of them, not simply amongst the number, 
but as the greatest and the sum of all the others; in a word, his 
proposing of them to his hearers for their rule and principle, was 
our Saviour’s own. 

And what our Saviour had said upon the subject, appears to me 
to havered the sentiment amongst his followers. 

Saint Paul has it expressly, ‘ If there be any other commandment, 
it is briefly comprehended in this saying. Thou shalt love thy neigh¬ 
bor as thyself ;’t and again, ‘ For all the law is fulfilled in one word, 
even in tnis. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’J 

Saint John, in like manner, ‘This commandment have we from 
him, that he who loveth God, love his brother also.’$ 

Saint Peter, not very differently: ‘ Seeing that ye have purified 
your souls in obeying the truth, through the Spirit, unto unfeigned 
love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart 
fervently.’jl 

And it is so well known, as to require no citations to verify it, 
that this love, or charity, or, in other words, regard to the welfare 
of others, runs in various forms through all the preceptive parts of 


♦ Matt. xxii. 35—40. 
§ 1 John iv. 21. 


t Rom. xiii. 9. 
II 1 Peter i. 22. 


t Gal. v. 14. 



Evidences of Christianity. 149 

the apostolic writings. It is the theme of all their exhortations, that 
with which their morality begins and ends, from which all their 
details and enumerations set out, and into which they return. 

And that this temper, for some time at least, descended in its 
purity to succeeding Christians, is attested by one of the earliest and 
best of the remaining writings of the apostolical fathers, the epistle 
of the Roman Clement. The meekness of the Christian character 
reigns throughout the whole of that excellent piece. The occasion 
called for it. It was to compose the dissensions of the church of 
Corinth. And the venerable hearer of the apostles does not fall 
short, in the display of this principle, of the finest passages of their 
writings. He calls to the remembrance of the Corinthian church 
its former character, in which ‘ ye were all of you,’ he tells them, 
‘humble-minded, not boasting of any thing, desiring rather to be 
subject than to govern, to give, than to receive, being content with 
the portion God had dispensed to you, and hearkening diligently to 
his word; ye were enlarged in your bowels, having his suflferings 
always before your eyes. Ye contended day and njght for the whole 
brotherhood, that with compassion and a good cons(nence the num¬ 
ber of his elect might be saved. Ye were sincere, and without 
offence, towards each other. Ye bewailed every one his neighbor’s 
sins, esteeming their defects your own.’* His prayer for them was 
for the ‘ return of peace, long-suffering, and patience’t And his 
advice to those, who might have been the occasion of difference in 
the society, is conceived in the true spirit, and with a perfect know¬ 
ledge, of the Christian character: ‘ Who is tliere among you that is 

f enerous ? who that is compassionate ? w ho tliat has any charity ? 

•et him say. If this sedition, this contention, and these schisms, be 
upon my account, I am ready to depart, to go away whithersoever ye 
please, and do whatsoever ye shall command me : only let the flock 
of Christ be in peace with the elders who are set over it. He that 
shall do this, shall get to himself a very great honor in the Lord; 
and there is no place but what will be ready to receive him: for the 
earth is the Lord’s, ana the fullness thereof These things they, who 
have their conversation towards God, not to be repented of, both 
have done, and will always be ready to do.’J 
'This sacred principle, this earnest recommendation of forbearance, 
lenity, and forgiveness, mixes with all the writings of that age. 
There are more quotations in the apostolical fathers, of texts which 
relate to these points, than of any other. Christ’s sayings had struck 
them. ‘Not rendering,’ said Polycarp, the disciple of John, * evil 
for evil, or railing for railing, or striking for striking, or cursing for 
cursing.’^ Again, speaking of some whose behavior had given great 
offence, ‘ Be ye moderate,’ says he, ‘ on this occasion, and look not 
upon such as enemies, but call them back as suffering and erring 
members, that ye save your whole body.’H 


* Ep. Clem. Rom. c. 2; Abp. Wake’s Translation* 
t tb. c 54. § Pol. Ep. Ad. Phil, c 2. 


t Ib. c. 53. 
11 Ib. c. 11. 
N2 



150 Foley's View of the 

‘Be ye mild at their anger,’ saith Ignatius, the companion of Poly 
carp, ‘ humble at their boastings, to their blasphemies return your 
prayers, to their error your firmness in the faith; when they are 
cruel, be ye gentle; not endeavoring to imitate their ways, let us 
be their brethren in all kindness and moderation: but let us be fol¬ 
lowers of the Lord; for who was ever more unjustly used, more 
destitute, more despised V 

IV. A fourth quality, by which the morality of the Gospel is dis¬ 
tinguished, is the exclusion of regard to fame and reputation. 

‘ Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of 
them, otherwise ye have no reward of your Father w'hich is in 
Heaven.’* 

‘ When thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast 
shut the door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father, 
which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.’t 

And the rule, by parity of reason, is extended to all other virtues 

I do not think, that either in these, or in any other passage of 
the New Testament, the pursuit of fame is stated as a vice ; it is 
only said that an action, to be virtuous, must be independent of it. 
I would also observe, that it is not publicity, but ostentation, which 
is prohibited; not the mode, but the motive, of the action, which is 
regulated. A good man will prefer that mode, as well as those 
objects of his beneficence, by which he can produce the greatest 
effect; and the view of this purpose may dictate sometimes publica¬ 
tion, and sometimes concealment. Either the one or the other may 
be the mode of the action, according as the end to be promoted by 
it appears to require. But from the motive, the reputation of the 
deed, and the fruits and advantage of that reputation to ourselves, 
must be shut out, or, in whatever proportion they are not so, the 
action in that proportion fails of being virtuous. 

This exclusion of regard to human opinion, is a difference, not so 
much in the duties to which the teachers of virtue would persuade 
mankind, as in the manner and topics of persuasion. And in this view 
the difference is great. When w;e set about to give advice, our lec¬ 
tures are full of the advantages of character, of the regard that is 
due to appearances and to opinion; of what the world, especially 
of what the good or great, will think and say; of the value of pub¬ 
lic esteem, and of the qualities by which men acquire it. Widely 
different from this was our Saviour’s instruction; and the difference 
was founded upon the best reasons. For, however the care of repu¬ 
tation, the authority of public opinion, or even of the opinion of 
good men, the satisfaction of being well received and well thought 
of, the benefit of being known and distinguished, are topics to 
which we are fain to have recourse in our exhortations; the true 
virtue is that which discards these considerations absolutely, and 
which retires from them all to the single internal purpose of pleas¬ 
ing God. This at least was the virtue which our Saviour taught. 
And in teaching this, he not only confined the views of his followers 


* Matt. vi. 1. 


t Matt. vi. 6. 



Evidences of Christianity, 151 

to the proper measure and principle of human duty, but acted in 
consistency with his office as a monitor from heaven. 

Next to vvhat our Saviour taught, may be considered the manner 
of his teaching: which was extremely peculiar, yet, I think, pre¬ 
cisely adapted to the peculiarity of his character and situation. His 
lessons did not consist of disquisitions; of any thing like moral 
essays, or like sermons, or like set treatises upon the several points 
which he mentioned. When he delivered a precept, it was seldom 
that he added any proof or argument: still more seldom, that he ac- 
companied it with, what all precepts require, limitations and dis¬ 
tinctions. His instructions were conceived in short, emphatic, sen¬ 
tentious rules, in occasional reflections, or in round maxims. I do 
not think that this was a natural, or would have been a proper 
method for a philosopher or a moralist; or that it is a method which 
can be successfully imitated by us. But I contend that it was suita¬ 
ble to the character which Christ assumed, and to the situation in 
which, as a teacher, he was placed. He produced himself as a 
messenger from God. He put the truth of what he taught upon 
authority.* In the choice, therefore, of his mode of teaching, the 
purpose by him to be consulted was impression: because conviction, 
which forrns the principal end of our aiscourses, was to arise in the 
rninds of his followers from a different source, from their respect to 
his person and authority. Now, for the purpose of impression singly 
and exclusively (I repeat again, that we are not here to consider 
the convincing of the understanding), I know nothing which would 
have so great force as strong ponderous maxims, frequently urged, 
and frequently brought back to the thoughts of the hearers. I know 
nothing that could in this view be said better, than ‘ Do unto others 
as ye would that others should do unto you V ‘The first and great 
commandment is. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God; and the 
second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’ It 
must also be remembered, that our Lord’s ministry, upon the sup¬ 
position either of one year or three, compared with his work, was 
of short duration; that, within this time, he had many places to 
visit, various audiences to address; that his person was generally 
besieged by crowds of followers: that he was, sometimes, driven 
away from the place where he w'as teaching by persecution, and at 
other times, thought fit to withdraw himself from the commotions 
of the populace. Under these circumstances, nothing appears to 
have been so practicable, or likely to be so efficacious, as leaving, 
wherever he came, concise lessons of duty. These circtimstances 
at least show the necessity he was under of comprising what he de¬ 
livered within a small compass. In particular, his sermon upon the 
mount ought always to be considered with a view to these obser¬ 
vations. The question is not, whether a fuller, a more accurate, ? 
more systematic, or a more argumentative, discourse upon morals 


* ‘ / say unto you. Swear not at all; / say unto you, Resist not evil; 1 
say unto you. Love your enemies.’—Matt. v. 34. 39. 4* 



152 Paley's View of the 

might not have been pronounced; but whether more could have 
been said in the same room, better adapted to the exigencies of the 
hearers, or better calculated for the purpose of impression ? Seen in 
this light, it has always appeared to me to be admirable. Dr. Lard- 
ner thought that this discourse was made up of what Christ had 
said at different times, and on different occasions, several of which 
occasions are noticed in Saint Luke’s narrative. I can perceive no 
reason for this opinion. I believe that our Lord delivered this dis¬ 
course at one time and place, in the manner related by Saint Mat¬ 
thew, and that he repeated the same rules and maxims at different 
times, as opportunity or occasion suggested ; that they were often 
in his mouth, and were repeated to different audiences, and in va¬ 
rious conversations. ‘ 

It is incidental to this mode of moral instruction, which proceeds 
not by proof but upon authority, not by disquisition but by precept, 
that the rules will be conceived in absolute terms, leaving the ap¬ 
plication, and the distinctions that attend it, to the reason of the 
hearer It is likewise to be expected that they will be delivered in 
terms by so much the more forcible and energetic, as they have to 
encounter natural or general propensities. It is farther also to be 
remarked, that many of those strong instances, which appear in our 
Lord’s sermon, such as, ‘ If any man will smite thee on the right 
cheek, turn to him the other also‘ If any man will sue thee at the 
law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also:’ ‘ Whoso¬ 
ever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain:’ though 
they appear in the form of specific precepts, are intended as descrip¬ 
tive of disposition and character. A specific compliance with the 
precepts would be of little value, but the disposition which they 
inculcate is of the highest. He who should content himself with 
waiting for the occasion, and with literally observing the rule when 
the occasion offered, would do nothing or worse than nothing: but 
he who considers the character and disposition which is hereby in¬ 
culcated, and places that disposition before him as the model to 
which he should bring his own, takes, perhaps, the best possible 
method of improving the benevolence, and of calming and rectify¬ 
ing the vices, of his temper. 

If it be said, that this disposition is unattainable, I answer, so is 
all perfection: ought therefore a moralist to recommend imperfec¬ 
tions ? One excellency, however, of our Saviour’s rules, is, that they 
are either never mistaken, or never so mistaken as to do harm. I 
could feign a hundred cases, in which the literal application of the 
rule, ‘ of doing to others as we would that others should do unto us,’ 
might mislead us: but I never yet met with the man who was ac¬ 
tually misled by it. Notwithstanding that our Lord bade his fol¬ 
lowers‘not to resist evil,’and ‘to forgive the enemy who should 
trespass against them, not till seven times, but till seventy times 
seven,’ the Christian world has hitherto suffered little by too much 
placability or forbearance. I would repeat once more, what has 
already been twice remarked, that these rules were designed to 


Evidences of Christianity 153 

regulate personal conduct from personal motives, and for this pur¬ 
pose alone. 

I think that these observations will assist us greatly in placing our 
Saviour’s conduct, as a moral teacher, in a proper point of view; 
especially when it is considered, that to deliver moral disquisitions 
was no part of his design,—to teach morality at all was only a sub¬ 
ordinate part of it; his great business being to supply, what was much 
more wanting than lessons of morality, stronger moral sanctions, 
and clearer assurances of a future judgment.* 

The parables of the New Testament are, many of them, such as 
would have done honor to any book in the world ; I do not mean 
in style and diction, but in the choice of the subjects, in the struc¬ 
ture of the narratives, in the aptness, propriety, and force of the cir¬ 
cumstances woven into them; and in some, as that of the good 
Samaritan, the prodigal son, the Pharisee and the publican, in a 
union of pathos and simplicity, which, in the best productions of 
human genius, is the fruit only of a much exercised and well- 
cultivated judgment. 

The Lord's Prayer, for a succession of solemn thoughts, for fixing 
the attention upon a few great points, for suitableness to every con¬ 
dition, for sufficiency, for conciseness without obscurity, for the 
weight and real importance of its petitions, is without an equal or a 
rival. 

From whence did these come ? Whence had this man his wis¬ 
dom ? Was our Saviour, in fact, a well-instructed philosopher, whilst 
he is represented to us as an illiterate peasant ? Or shall we say that 
some early Christians of taste and education composed these pieces 
and ascribed them to Christ ? Beside all other incredibilities in this 
account, I answer, with Dr. Jortin, that they could not do it. No 
specimens of composition, which the Christians of the first century 
have left us, authorize us to believe that they were equal to the 
task. And how little qualified the Jews, the countrymen and com¬ 
panions of Christ, were to assist him in the undertaking, may be 
judged of from the traditions and writings of theirs which were the 
nearest to that age. The whole collection of the Talmud is one 
continued proof, into what follies they fell whenever they left their 


* Some appear to require a religious system, or, in the books which 
profess to deliver that system, minute directions, for every case and oc¬ 
currence that may arise. 7’his, say they, is necessary to render a revela¬ 
tion perfect, especially one which has for its object the regulation of hu¬ 
man conduct. Now, how prolix, yet bow incomplete and unavailing, 
such an attempt must have been, is proved by one notable example ; 
‘ The Indoo and Mussulman religion are institutes of civil law, regulat 
ing the minutest questions both of property, and of all questions which 
come under the cognizance of the magistrate. And to what length details 
of this kind are necessarily carried, when once begun, may be under¬ 
stood from an anecdote of the Mussulman code, which we have received 
from the most respectable authority, that not less than seventy-five 
thousand traditional precepts have been promulgated.’ (Hamilton’s 
Translation of Hedaya, or Guide.) 



54 


Foley's View of the 

biDle; and how little capable they were of furnishing out such les¬ 
sons as Christ delivered. 

But there is still another view, in which our Lord’s discourses 
deserve to be considered; and that is, in their negative character,— 
not in what they did, but in what they did not, contain. Under this 
head, the following reflections appear to me to possess some weight 

I. They exhibit no particular description of the invisible world 
The future happiness of the good, and the misery of the bad, which 
is all we want to be assured of, is directly and positively affirmed, 
and is represented by metaphors and comparisons, which were 
plainly intended as metaphors and comparisons, and as nothing 
more. As to the rest, a solemn reserve is maintained. The ques¬ 
tion concerning the woman who had been married to seven 
brothers, ‘Wliose shall she be on the resurrection?’ was of a 
nature calculated to have drawn from Christ a more circumstantial 

ccount of the state cf the human species in their future existence. 
He cut short, however, the inquiry, by an answer, which at once 
rebuked intruding curiosity, and was agreeable to the best appre¬ 
hensions we are able to form upon the subject, viz. ‘That they who 
are accounted worthy of that resurrection, shall be as the angels of 
God in heaven.’ I lay a stress upon this reserve, because it repels 
the suspicion of enthusiasm: for enthusiasm is wont to expatiate 
upon the condition of the departed, above all other subjects; and 
with a wild particularity. It is moreover a topic which is always 
listened to with greediness. The teacher, therefore, w hose princi¬ 
pal purpose is to draw upon himself attention, is sure to be full of it 
The Koran of Mahomet is half made up of it 

II. Our Lord enjoined no austerities. He not only enjoined none 
as absolute duties, but he recommended none as carrying men to a 
higher degree of divine favor. Place Christianity, in this respect, 
by the side of all institutions which have been founded in the fanati¬ 
cism, either of their author, or of his first followers; or rather com¬ 
pare, in this respect, Christianity as it came from Christ, with the 
same religion after it fell into other hands; with the extravagant 
merit very soon ascribed to celibacy, solitude, voluntary poverty, 
with the rigors of an ascetic, and the vows of a monastic life; the 
hair shirt, the w^atchings, the midnight prayers, the obmutescence 
the gloom and mortification of religious orders, and of those who 
aspired to religious perfection. 

III. Our Saviour uttered no impassioned devotion. There w'as no 
neat in his piety, or in the language in which he expressed it; nc 

ehement or rapturous ejaculations, no violent urgency, m his 
rayers. The Lord’s Prayer is a model of calm devotion. His words 
m the garden are unaffected expressions, of a deep indeed, bu 
sober, piety. He never appears to have been worked up into any 
thing like that elation, or that emotion of spirit which is occasional!} 
observed in most of those, to whom the name of enthusiast can ii 
any degree be applied. I feel a respect for Methodists, because 
nelieve that there is to be found amongst them much sincere piety. 


Evidences of Christianity. 155 

and availing, though not always w'ell-informed, Christianity: yet 1 
never attended a meeting of theirs, but I came away with the reflec¬ 
tion, how' different what I heard was from what I read! I do not 
mean in doctrine, with which at present I have no concern, but in 
manner; how different from the calmness, the sobriety, the good 
sense, and I may add, the strength and authority, of our Lord’s dis¬ 
courses ! 

IV. It is very usual with the human mind, to substitute forward¬ 
ness and fervency in a particular cause, for the merit of general and 
regular morality; and it is natural, and politic also, in the leader of 
a sect or party, to encourage such a disposition in his followers. 
Christ did not overlook this turn of thought; yet, though avowedly 
placing himself at the head of a new institution, he notices it only 
to condemn it. ‘ Not every one that saith unto me. Lord, Lord, shall 
enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my 
Father which is in heaven. Many will say unto me in that day, 
Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name ? and in thy nanie 
have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 
And then will I profess unto you I never knew you: depart from 
me, ye that work iniquity’* & far was the author of Christianity 
from courting the attachment of his followers by any sacrifice of 
principle, or by a condescension to the errors which even zeal in his 
service might have inspired I This was a proof both of sincerity 
and judgment. 

V. Nor, fifthly, did he fall in with any of the depraved fashions 
of his country, or with the natural bias of his own education. Bred 
up a Jew, under a religion extremely technical, in an age and 
amongst a people more tenacious of the ceremonies than of any 
other part of that religion, he delivered an institution, containing 
less of ritual, and that more simple than is to be found in any reli¬ 
gion which ever prevailed amongst mankind. We have known, I 
do allow, examples of an enthusiasm, which has swept away all 
external ordinances before it. But this spirit certainly did not dic¬ 
tate our Saviour’s conduct, either in his treatment of the religion 
of his country, or in the formation of his own institution. In both, 
he displayed the soundness and moderation of his judgment. He 
censured an overstrained scrupulousness, or perhaps an affectation 
of scrupulousness, about the sabbath: but how did he censure it? 
not by contemning or decrying the institution itself, but by declaring 
that ‘ the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath;’ that 
is to say, that the sabbath was to be subordinate to its purpose, and 
that that purpose was the real good of those who were the subjects 
of the law. The same concerning the nicety of some of the Phari¬ 
sees, m paying tithes of the most trifling articles, accompanied with 
a neglect of justice, fidelity, and mercy. He finds fault with them 
for misplacing their anxiety. He does not speak disrespectfully of 
the law of tithes, nor of their observance of it; but he assigns to 


♦Matt, vii.21,2^. 




156 Paleifs View of the 

each class of duties its proper station in the scale of moral import¬ 
ance. All this might be expected perhaps from a well-instructed, 
cool, and judicious philosopher, but was not to be looked for from 
an illiterate Jew; certainly not from an impetuous enthusiast. 

VI. Nothing could be more quibbling, than were the comments 
and expositions of the Jewish doctors at that time; nothing so puerile 
as their distinctions. Their evasion of the fifth commandment, their 
exposition of the law of oaths, are specimens of the bad taste in 
morals which then prevailed. Whereas, in a numerous collection 
of our Saviour’s apophthegms, many of them referring to sundry 
precepts of the Jewish law, there is not to be found one example of 
sophistry, or of false subtilty, or of any thing approaching thereimto. 

VII. The national temper of the Jews was intolerant, narrow¬ 
minded, and excluding. In Jesus, on the contrary, whether we 
regard his lessons or his example, we see not only benevolence, but 
benevolence the most enlarged and comprehensive. In the parable 
of the good Samaritan, the very point of the story is, that the person 
relieved by him, was the national and religious enemy of his bene¬ 
factor. Our Lord declared the equity of the divine administration, 
when he told the Jews (what, probably, they were surprised to 
hear), ‘ That many should come from the east and west, and should 
sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of hea¬ 
ven ; but that the children of the kingdom should be cast into outer 
darkness.’* His reproof of the hasty zeal of his disciples, who would 
needs call down fire from heaven to revenge an affront put upon 
their Master, shows the lenity of his character, and of his religion; 
and his opinion of the manner in which the most unreasonable 
opponents ought to be treated, or at least of the manner in which 
they ought not to be treated. The terms in which his rebuke was 
conveyed, deserve to be noticed;—‘Ye know not what manner of 
spirit ye are of.’t 

VIII. Lastly, amongst the negative qualities of our religion, as it 
came out of the hands of its Founder and his apostles, we may 
reckon its complete abstraction from all views either of ecclesiasti¬ 
cal or civil policy; or, to meet a language much in fashion with 
some men, from the politics either of priests or statesmen. Christ’s 
declaration, that ‘ his kingdom was not of this world,’ recorded by 
Saint John; his evasion of the question, whether it was lawful or 
not to give tribute unto Cffisar, mentioned by the three other evan¬ 
gelists ; his reply to an application that was made to him, to inter¬ 
pose his authority in a question of property; ‘ Man, who made me a 
ruler or a judge over you?’ ascribed to him by Saint Luke; his de¬ 
clining to exercise the office of a criminal judge in the case of the 
\yoman taken in adultery, as related by John, are all intelligible 
significations of our Saviour’s sentiments upon this head. And with 
respect to politics, in the usual sense of that word, or discussions 
concerning different forms of government, Christianity declines 
every question upon the subject. Whilst politicians are disputing 


* Matt. viii. 11. 


t Luke ix. 55. 



Evidences of Christianity. 157 

about monarchies, aristocracies, and republics, the gospel is alike 
applicable, useful, and friendly, to them all; inasmuch as, 1st, it 
tends to make men virtuous, and as it is easier to govern good men 
than bad men under any constitution; as, 2dly, it states obedience 
to government in ordinary cases, to be not merely a submission to 
force, but a duty of conscience; as, 3dly, it induces dispositions fa¬ 
vorable to public tranquillity, a Christian’s chief care being to pass 
quietly through this world to a better; as, 4thly, it prays for com¬ 
munities, and for the governors of communities, of whatever de¬ 
scription or denomination they be, with a solicitude and fervency 
proportioned to the influence which they possess upon human hap¬ 
piness. All which, in my opinion, is just as it should be. Had 
there been more to be found in Scripture of a political nature, or 
convertible to political purposes, the worst use would have been 
made of it, on whichever side it seemed to lie. 

When, therefore, we consider Christ as a moral teacher (remem¬ 
bering that this was only a secondary part of his office; and that 
morality, by the nature of the subject, does not admit of discovery, 
properly so called);—when we consider either what he taught, or 
what he did not teach, either the substance or the manner of his 
instruction; his preference of solid to popular virtues, of a character 
which is commonly despised to a character which is universally 
extolled; his placing, in our licentious vices, the check in the right 
place, viz. upon the thoughts; his collecting of human duty into tw^o 
well-devised rules, his repetition of these rules, the stress he laid 
upon them, especially in comparison with positive duties, and his 
fixing thereby the sentiments of his follow^ers; his exclusion of all 
regard to reputation in our devotion and alms, and, by parity of 
reason, in our other virtues;—when we consider that his instruc¬ 
tions were delivered in a form calculated for impression, the precise 
purpose in his situation to be consulted; and that they were illus¬ 
trated by parables, the choice and structure of which would have 
be^n admired in any composition whatever;—when we observe 
him free from the usual symptoms of enthusiasm, heat and vehe¬ 
mence in devotion, austerity in institutions, and a wild particularity 
in the description of a future state; free also from the depravitie 
of his age and country; without superstition amongst the most su 
perstitious of men, yet not decrying positive distinctions or externa 
observances, but soberly calling them to the principle of their es¬ 
tablishment, and to their place in the scale of human duties; with¬ 
out sophistry or trifling, amidst teachers remarkable for nothing so 
much as frivolous subtilties and quibbling expositions; candid and 
liberal in his judgment of the rest of mankind, although belonging 
to a people who affected a separate claim to divine favor, and, in 
consequence of that opinion, prone to uncharitableness, partiality, 
and restitution;—when we find, in his religion, no scheme of build¬ 
ing up a hierarchy, or of ministering to the views of human govern¬ 
ments ;—in a word, when we compare Christianity, as it came from 
its Author, either with other religions, or with itself in other hands, 
the most reluctant understanding will be induced to acknowledge 

O 


158 Paley's View of the 

the probity, I think also the good sense, of those to whom it owes 
its origin; and that some regard is due to the testimony of such 
men, w hen they declare their knowledge that the religion proceeded 
from God; and when they appeal, for the truth of their assertion, to 
miracles which they wrought, or which they saw. 

Perhaps the qualities which we observe in the religion, may be 
thought to prove something more. They would have been extraor 
dinary, had the religion come from any person; from the person 
from whom it did come, they are exceedingly so. What was Jesus 
in external appearance ? A Jewish peasant, the son of a carpenter, 
living with his father and mother in a remote province of Palestine, 
until the time that he produced himself in his public character. He 
had no master to instruct or prompt him; he had read no books, but 
the works of Moses and the prophets ; he had visited no polished 
cities; he had received no lessons from Socrates or Plato,—nothing 
to form in him a taste or judgment different from that of the rest of 
his countrymen, and of persons of the same rank of life with him¬ 
self. Supposing it to be true, which it is not, that all his points of 
morality might be picked out of Greek and Roman writings, they 
were writings which he had never seen. Supposing them to be no 
more than w'hat some or other had taught in various times and 
places, he could not collect them together. 

Who were his coadjutors in the undertaking,—the persons into 
whose hands the religion came after his death? A few fishermen 
upon the lake of Tiberias, persons just as uneducated, and, for the 
purpose of framing rules of morality, as unpromising as himself. 
Suppose the mission to be real, all this is accounted for; the un¬ 
suitableness of the authors to the production, of the characters to 
the undertaking, no longer surprises us: but without reality, it is 
very difficult to explain, how such a system should proceed from 
such persons. Christ was not like any other carpenter; the apos¬ 
tles were not like any other fishermen. 

But the subject is not exhausted by these observations. That 
portion of it, which is most reducible to points of argument, has been 
stated, and, I trust, truly. There are, howrever, some topics of a 
more diffuse nature, which yet deserve to be proposed to the 
reader’s attention. 

The character of Christ is a part of the morality of the gospel: one 
strong observation upon which is, that, neither as represented by 
his followers, nor as attacked by his enemies, is he charged with 
any personal vice. This remark is as old as Origen: ‘ Though in¬ 
numerable lies and calumnies had been forged against the venera¬ 
ble Jesus, none had dared to charge him with an intemperance.”* 
Not a reflection upon his moral character, not an imputation or sus¬ 
picion of any offence against purity and chastity, appears for five 
hundred years after his birth. This faultlessness is more peculiar 
than we are apt to imagine. Some stain pollutes the morals or the 


* Or. Ep. Cels. 1. 3. num. 36. ed. Bened. 



Evidences of Christianity. 159 

morality of almost every other teacher, and of every other lawgiver.* * * § 
Zeno the stoic, and Diogenes the cynic, fell into the foulest impuri¬ 
ties; of which also Socrates himself was more than suspected. 
Solon forbade unnatural crimes to slaves, Lycurgus tolerated theft 
as a part of education. Plato recommended a community of women. 
Aristotle maintained the general right of making war upon barba¬ 
rians. The elder Cato was remarkable for the ill usage of his 
slaves: the younger gave up the person of his wife. One loose 
principle is found in almost all the Pagan moralists; is distinctly, 
however, perceived in the writings of Plato, Xenophon, Cicero, 
Seneca, Epictetus; and that is, the allowing, and even the recom¬ 
mending to their disciples, a compliance with the religion, and with 
the religious rites, of every country into which they came. In 
speaking of the founders of new institutions, we cannot forget Ma¬ 
homet. His licentious transgressions of his own licentious rules ; 
his abuse of the character which he assumed, and of the power 
which he had acquired, for the purposes of personal and privileged 
indulgence; his avowed claim of a special permission from heaven 
of unlimited sensuality, is known to every reader, as it is confessed 
by every writer, of the Moslem story. 

Secondly, In the histories which are left us of Jesus Christ, al¬ 
though very short, and although dealing in narrative, and not in 
observation or panegyric, we perceive, beside the absence of every 
appearance of vice, traces of devotion, humility, benignity, mildness, 
patience, prudence. I speak of traces of these qualities, because 
the qualities themselves are to be collected from incidents; inas¬ 
much as the terms are never used of Christ in the Gospels, nor is 
any formal character of him drawn in any part of the New Testa¬ 
ment, 

Thus we see the devoutness of his mind, in his frequent retirement 
to solitary prayer ;t in his habitual giving of thanks in his refer¬ 
ence of the beauties and operations of nature to the bounty of Provi¬ 
dence ;§ in his earnest addresses to his Father, more particularly that 
short but solemn one before the raising of Lazarus from the dead ;lt 
and in the deep piety of his behavior in the garden, on the last 
evening of his life :ir his hximility, in his constant reproof of conten 
tions for superiority :** the benignity and affectionateness of his tem¬ 
per, in his kindness to children ;tt m the tears which he shed over 
his falling count^,tt and upon the death of his friend ;§$ in his 
noticing of the widow’s mite ;|lll in his parables of the good Samari¬ 
tan, of the ungrateful servant, and of the Pharisee and publican, of 
which parables no one but a man of humanity could have been the 


* See many instances collected by Grotius, de VeritateChristianse Ke- 
ligionis, in the notes to the second book, p. 116. Pocoek’s edition. 

tMatt xiv. 23. Luke ix. 28. Matt. xxvi. 36. 

X Matt. xi. 25 Mark viii. 6. John vi. 23. Luke xxii. 17 

§ Matt. vi. 26—28. [( John xi. 41. IT Matt. xxvi. 36—47. 

** Mark ix. 33. ff Mark x. 16. tt Luke xix. 41. 

§§ John xi. 35. |l| Mark xii. 42. 




160 


Paley's View of the 

author: the mildness and lenity of his character is discovered, in hi® 
rebuke of the forward zeal of his disciples at the Samaritan vil¬ 
lage in his expostulation with Pilate ;t in his prayer for his ene¬ 
mies at the moment of his suffering,! which, though it has beer, 
since very properly and frequently imitated, was then, I apprehend 
new. His prudence is discerned, where prudence is most wanted, 
in his conduct on trying occasions, and in answers to artful ques¬ 
tions. Of these, the following are examples:—His withdrawing, ir 
various instances, from the first symptoms of tumult,$ and with the 
express care, as appears from Saint Matthew',ll of carrying on his 
ministry in quietness; his declining every species of interference 
with the civil affairs of the country, which disposition is manifested 
by his behavior in the case of the woman caught in adultery,11 and 
in his repulse of the application which was made to him, to inter¬ 
pose his decision about a disputed inheritance :* ** his judicious, yet, 
as it should seem, unprepared answers, will be confessed in the 
case of the Roman tribute ;tt in the difficulty concerning the inter¬ 
fering relations of a future state, as proposed to him in the instance 
of a woman who had married seven brethren;!}: and, more espe¬ 
cially, in his reply to those who demanded from him an explanation 
of the authority by which he acted, which reply consisted, in pro¬ 
pounding a question to them, situated between the very difficulties 
into w’hich they were insidiously endeavoring to draw 
Our Saviour’^s lessons, besides what has mready been remarked 
in them, touch, and that oftentimes by very affecting representations, 
upon some of the most interesting topics of human duty, and of 
human meditation: upon the principles, by which the decisions of 
the last day will be regulated :llll upon the superior, or rather the 
supreme, importance of religion rHIT upon penitence, by the most 
pressing calls and the most encouraging invitations ;*** upon self- 
denial,ttt watchfulness,tt! placability,$$$ confidence in God,||llll the 
value of spiritual, that is, of mental worship,IFITIT the necessity of 
moral obedience, and the directing of that obedience to the spirit 
and principle of the law, instead of seeking for evasions in a tech¬ 
nical construction of its terms.**** 

If we extend our argument to other !)arts of the New Testament, 
we may offer, as amongst the best and shortest rules of life, or, 
which IS the same thing, descriptions of virtue, that have ever been 
delivered, the following passages ; 

‘ Pure religion, and undefiled, before God and the Father, is this, 


* Luke ix. 55. f John xix. 11. J Luke xxiii. 34. 

§ Matt. xiv. 22. Luke v. 15,16. John v. 13. vi. 15. |( Chap. xii. 19. 

IT John viii 1. ** Luke xii. 14. ft Matt. xxii. 19. 

Matt. xxii. 28. §§ Matt, xxi 23, &;c. |(lj Matt. xxv. 31, &c 

iriT Mark viii. 35. Matt. vi. 31—33. Luke xii. 4,5.16—21. 

*** Luke XV. ttt Matt. v. 29. 

Jtt Mark xiii. 37. Matt. xxiv. 42.—xxv. 13. 

§§§ Luke xvii. 4. Matt, xviii. 33, &e. |(|(|| Matt. vi. 25—30. 

IIlFJr John iv. 23,24. •*** Matt. v. 21. 



Evidences of Christianity. 161 

to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep 
himself unspotted from the world.’* 

‘ Now the end of the commandment is, charity, out of a pure 
heart and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned.’t 

‘For the grace of God that bringeth salvation, hath appeared to 
all men, teaching us, that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, 
we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present 
world.’t 

Enumerations of virtues and vices, and those sufficiently accu¬ 
rate, and unquestionably just, are given by Saint Paul to his con¬ 
verts in three several Epistles.$ 

The relative duties of husbands and wives, of parents and chil¬ 
dren, of masters and servants, of Christian teachers and their flocks, 
of governors and their subjects, are set forth by the same writer,|| 
not indeed with the copiousness, the detail, or the distinctness, of a 
rnoralist, who should, in these days, sit down to write chapters upon 
the subject, but with the leading rules and principles in each; and, 
above all, with truth, and with authority. 

Lastly, the whole volume of the New Testament is replete with 
piety ; with, what were almost unknown to heathen moralists, devo- 
tional virtueSy the most profound veneration of the Deity, an habitual 
sense of his bounty and protection, a firm confidence in the final 
result of his counsels and dispensations, a disposition to resort, upon 
all occasions, to his mercy, for the supply of human wants, for assist¬ 
ance in danger, for relief from pain, for the pardon of sin. 


CHAP. III. 

The Candor of the Writers of the New Testament. 

I MAKE this candor to consist, in their putting down many pas¬ 
sages, and noticing many circumstances, which no writer whatever 
was likely to have forged ; and which no writer would have chosen 
to appear in his book, who had been careful to present the story in 
the most unexceptionable form, or who had thought himself at lib¬ 
erty to carve and mould the particulars of that story, according to 
his choice, or according to his judgment of the effect. 

A strong and well-known example of the fairness of the evan¬ 
gelists, offers itself in their account of Christ’s resurrection, namely, 
in their unanimously stating, that after he was risen, he appeared to 
his disciples alone, I do not mean that they have used the exclusive 
word alone ; but that all the instances which they have recorded 
of his appearance, are instances of appearance to his disciples; that 
their reasonings upon it, and allusions to it, are confined to this sup¬ 
position ; and that, by one of them, Peter is made to say, ‘ Him God 


* James i 27. flTim. i.5. 

6 Gal. V. 19. Col. iii. 12. 1 Cor. xiii. 

11 Eph. V. 33. vi. 1. 5. 2 Cor. vi. 6, 7. Rom. xiii. 


I Tit. ii. 11,12. 


02 




162 


Paley's View of the 

raised up the third day, and showed him openly, not to all the peo¬ 
ple, but to witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat 
and drink with him after he rose from the dead.’* The most com¬ 
mon understanding must have perceived, that the history of the 
resurrection would have come with more advantage, if they had 
related that Jesus appeared, after he was risen, to his foes as well 
as his friends, to the Scribes and Pharisees, the Jewish council, and 
the Roman governor: or even if they had asserted the public ap¬ 
pearance of Christ in general unqualified terms, without noticing, 
as they have done, the presence of his disciples on each occasion, 
and noticing it in such a manner as to lead their readers to suppose 
that none but disciples were present They could have represented 
It in one way as well as the other. And if their point had been, to 
have the religion believed, whether true or false; if they had fabri¬ 
cated the story ah initio; or if thej^ had been disposed either to have 
delivered their testimony as witnesses, or to have worked up their 
materials and information as historians, in such a manner as to ren¬ 
der their narrative as specious and unobjectionable as they could ; 
in a word, if they had thought of any thing but of the truth of the 
case, as they understood and believed it; they would, in their ac¬ 
count of Christ’s several appearances after his resurrection, at least 
have omitted this restriction. At this distance of time, the account 
as we have it, is perhaps more credible than it would have been the 
other way; because this manifestation of the historian’s candor, is 
of more advantage to their testimony, than the difference in the cir¬ 
cumstances of the account would have been to the nature of the 
evidence. But this is an eflbct which the evangelists would not 
foresee: and I think that it was by no means the case at the time 
when the books were composed. 

Mr. Gibbon has argued for the genuineness of the Koran, from 
the confessions which it contains to the apparent disadvantage of 
the Mahometan cause.t The same defence vindicates the genuine¬ 
ness of our Gospels, and without prejudice to the cause at all. 

There are some other inferences in which the evangelists honestly 
relate what, they must have perceived, would make against them. 

Of this kind is John the Baptist’s message, preserved by Saint 
Matthew, (xi. 2.) and Saint Luke (vii. 18.): ‘ Now when John had 
heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, 
and said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or look we for an¬ 
other?’ To confess, still more to state, that John the Baptist had his 
doubts concerning the character of Jesus, could not but afford a 
handle to cavil and objection. But truth, like honesty, neglects ap- 
pearances. The same observation, perhaps, holds concerning the 
apostasy of Judas.l: 


Acts X. 40,41. -j- Vol. ix. c. 50, note 96. 

J 1 iiad once placed amongst these examples of fair concession, the 
remarkable words of Saint Matthew, in his account of Christ’s appear¬ 
ance upon the Galilean mountain ; ‘And when they saw him, they wor 




Evidences of Christianity. 168 

John vi. 66. • From that time, many of his disciples went back, 
and walked no more with him.’ Was it the part of a writer, who 
dealt in suppression and disguise, to put down this anecdote ? 

Or this, which Matthew has preserved? (xii. 58.) ‘He did not 
many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.’ 

Again, in the same evangelist: (v. 17, 18.) ‘ Think not that I am 
come to destroy the law and the prophets; I am not come to destroy, 
but to fulfil: for, verily, I say unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, 
one jot, or one tittle, shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be 
fulfilled.’ At the time the Gospels were written, the apparent ten¬ 
dency of Christ’s mission was to diminish the authority of the Mo¬ 
saic code, and it was so considered by the Jews themselves. It is 
very improbable, therefore, that, without the constraint of truth, 
Matthew should have ascribed a saying to Christ, which, in¬ 
tuitu, militated with the judgment of the age in which his Gospel 
was written. Marcion thought this text so objectionable that he 
altered the words, so as to invert the sense.* * 

Once rnore: (Acts xxv. 18, 19.) ‘They brought none accusations 
against him, of such things as I supposed, but had certain questions 
against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus which was 
dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.’ Nothing could be more in 
the character of a Roman governor than these words. But that is 
not precisely the point T am concerned with. A mere panegyrist, 
or a dishonest narrator, would not have represented his cause, or 
have made a great magistrate represent it, in this manner; i. e. in 
terms not a little disparaging, and bespeaking, on his part, much 
unconcern and indifference about the matter. The same observa¬ 
tion may be repeated of the speech which is ascribed to Gallio, 
(Acts xviii. 15.) ‘ If it be a question of words and names, and of 
your law, look ye to it; fori will be no judge of such matters.’ 

Lastly, where do we discern a stronger mark of candor, or less 
disposition to extol and magnify, than in the conclusion of the same 
history ? in which the evangelist, after relating that Paul, on his first 
arrival at Rome, preached to the Jews from morning until evening, 
adds, ‘ And some believed the things which were spoken, and some 
believed not.’ 


shipped him ; but some doubted.'^ I have since, however, been convinced 
by what is observed concerning this passage in Dr. Townshend’s dis¬ 
course! upon the resurrection, that the transaction, as related by Saint 
Matthew, was really this: ‘Christ appeared first at a distance; the 
greater part of the company, the moment they saw him, worshipped, but 
some, as yet, i. e. upon the first distant view of his person, doubted ; where¬ 
upon Christ came up§ to them, and spake to them,’ &c. : that the doubt, 
therefore, was only a doubt at first, for a moment, and upon his being 
seen at a distance, and was afterward dispelled by his nearer approach, 
and by his entering into conversation with them. 

* Lardner, Cred. vol. xv. p. 452. 

t Chap, xxviii. 17. t Page 177. 

§ Saint Matthew’s words are, Kat TtpoazXBmv h Irfaov?, sXaXrjffev avTOi^. This- 
intimates, that, when he first appeared, it was at a distance, at least from many of the specta¬ 
tors. lb. p. 197. 




164 


Paley^s View of the 

The following, I think, are passages which were very unlikely 
to have presented themselves to the mind of a forger or a fabulist. 

Matt. xxi. 21. ‘ Jesus answered and said unto them. Verily, I say 
unto you. If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this 
which is done unto the fig-tree, but also, if ye shall say unto this 
mountain. Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea, it shall 
be done ; all things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, it 
shall be done.’* It appears to me very improbable that these words 
should have been put into Christ’s mouth, if he had not actually 
spoken them. The term ‘faith,’ as here used, is perhaps rightly 
interpreted of confidence in that internal notice, by which the apos¬ 
tles were admonished of their power to perform any particular 
miracle. And this exposition renders the sense of the text more 
easy. But the words, undoubtedly, in their obvious construction, 
carry with them a difficulty, which no writer would have brought 
upon himself officiously. 

Luke ix. 59. ‘ And he said unto another. Follow me: but he 
said. Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said 
unto him. Let the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the 
kingdom of God.’t This answer, though very expressive of the 
transcendent importance of religious concerns, was apparently harsh 
and repulsive ; and such as would not have been made for Christ, 
if he had not really used it. At least some other instances would 
have been chosen. 

The following passage, I, for the same reason, think impossible to 
have been the production of artifice, or of a cold forgery:—‘ But I 
say unto you. That whosoever is angry with his brother without a 
cause, shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say 
to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but whoso¬ 
ever shall say. Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell-fire (Gehennse).’ 
Matt. V. 22. It is emphatic, cogent, and well calculated for the 
purpose of impression; but is inconsistent with the supposition of 
art or wariness on the part of the relater. 

The short reply of our Lord to Mary Magdalen, after his resur¬ 
rection, (John XX. 16, 17.) ‘Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended 
unto my Father,’ in my opinion, must have been founded in a refer¬ 
ence or allusion to some prior conversation, for the want of know¬ 
ing which, his meaning is hidden from us. This very obscurity, 
however, is a proof of genuineness. No one would have forged 
such an answer. 

John vi. The whole of the conversation recorded in this chapter, 
is, in the highest degree, unlikely to be fabricated, especially the 
part of our Saviour’s reply between the fiftieth and the fifty-eighth 
verse. I need only put down the first sentence: ‘ 1 am the living 
bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, 
he shall live for ever: and the bread that 1 will give him is my 
flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.’ Without calling 
in question the expositions that have been given of this passage, we 


♦ See also chap. xvii. 20. Luke xvii. 6. 


t See also Matt. viii. 21. 



Evidences of Christianity. 165 

may be permitted to say, that it labors under an obscurity, in which 
it is impossible to believe that any one, who made speeches for the 
persons of his narrative, would have voluntarily involved them. 
That this discourse was obscure, even at the time, is confessed by 
the writer who had preserved it, when he tells us, at the conclu¬ 
sion, that many of our Lord’s disciples, when they had heard this, 
said, ‘ This is a hard saying; who can bear it V 

Christ’s taking of a young child, and placing it in the midst of his 
contentious disciples, (Matt, xviii. 2.) though as decisive a proof as 
could be, of the beni^ty of his temper, and very expressive of the 
character of the religion which he wished to inculcate, was not by 
any means an obvious thought. Nor am I acquainted with any 
thing in any ancient vyriting which resembles it. 

The account of the institution of the eucharist bears strong inter¬ 
nal marks of genuineness. If it had been feigned, it would have 
been more full; it would have come nearer to the actual mode of 
celebrating the rite, as that mode obtained veiy early in Christian 
churches: and it would have been more formal than it is. In the 
forged piece, called the Apostolic Constitutions, the apostles are 
made to enjoin many parts of the ritual which was in use in the 
second and third centuries, with as much particularity as a modern 
rubric could have done. Whereas, in the History of the Lord’s 
supper, as we read it in Saint Matthew’s Gospel, there is not so 
rnuch as the command to repeat it. This, surely, looks like unde¬ 
signedness. I think also that the difficulty arising from the con¬ 
ciseness of Christ’s expression, ‘ This is my body,’ would have been 
avoided in a made-up story. I allow that the explications of these 
words, given by Protestants, is satisfactory; but it is deduced from 
a diligent comparison of the words in question with forms of ex¬ 
pression used in Scripture, and especially by Christ upon other oc¬ 
casions. No writer would arbitrarily and unnecessarily have thus 
cast in his reader’s way a difficulty, which, to say the least, it re¬ 
quired research and erudition to clear up. 

Now it ought to be observed, that the argument which is built 
upon these examples, extends both to the authenticity of the books 
and to the truth of the narrative: for it is improbable that the forger 
of a history in the name of another should have inserted such pas¬ 
sages into it; and it is improbable also, that the, persons whose 
names the books bear should have fabricated such passages; or 
even have allowed them a place in their work, if they had not be¬ 
lieved them to express the truth. 

The following observation, therefore, of Dr. Lardner, the most 
candid of all advocates, and the most cautious of all inquirers, seems 
to be well-founded:—‘ Christians are induced to believe the writers 
of the Gospel, by observing the evidences of piety and probity that 
appear in their writings, in which there is no deceit, or artifice, or 
cunning, or design.’ ‘ No remarks,’ as Dr. Beattie hath properly 
said, ‘ are thrown in, to anticipate objectionsnothing of that cau¬ 
tion, which never fails to distinguish the testimony of those who are 


166 


Paley's View of the 

conscious of imposture; no endeavors to reconcile the reader’s 
mind to what may be extraordinary in the narrative.’ 

I beg leave to cite also another author,* who has well expressed 
the reflection which the examples now brought forward were in¬ 
tended to suggest. ‘ It doth not appear that ever it came into the 
mind of these writers, to consider how this or the other action would 
appear to mankind, or what objections might be raised upon them. 
But without at all attending to this, they lay the facts before you, 
at no pains to think whether they would appear credible or not. If 
the reader will not believe their testimony, there is no help for it : 
they tell the truth, and attend to nothing else. Surely this looks 
like sincerity, and that they published nothing to the world but 
what they believed themselves.’ 

As no improper supplement to this chapter, I crave a place here 
for observing the extreme naturalness of some of the things related 
in the New Testament. 

Mark ix. 23. ‘Jesus said unto him, If thou eanst believe, all 
things are possible to him that believeth. And straightway the 
father of the child cried out and said with tears, Lord, I believe; 
help thou mine unbelief’ The struggle in the father’s heart, be¬ 
tween solicitude for the preservation of his child, and a kind of in¬ 
voluntary distrust of Christ’s power to heal him, is here expressed 
with an air of reality, w’hich could hardly be counterfeited. 

Again, (Matt. xxi. 9.) the eagerness of the people to introduce 
Christ into Jerusalem, and their demand, a short time afterward, of 
his crucifixion, when he did not turn out what they expected him 
to be, so far from affording matter of objection, represents popular 
favor in exact agreement with nature and with experience, as the 
flux and reflux of a wave. 

The rulers and Pharisees rejecting Christ, whilst many of the 
common people received him, was the effect which, in the then 
state of Jewish prejudices, I should have expected. And the reason 
with which they who rejected Christ’s mission kept themselves in 
countenance, and with which also they answered the arguments of 
those w’ho favored it, is precisely the reason which such men 
usually give:—‘ Have any of the scribes or Pharisees believed on 
him ?’ (John vii. 48.) 

In our Lord’s conversation at the well (John iv. 29.) Christ had 
surprised the Samaritan woman with an allusion to a single particu¬ 
lar in her domestic situation, ‘ Thou hast had five husbands; and 
he, whom thou now hast, is not thy husband.’ The woman, soon 
after this, ran back to the city, and called out to her neighbors. 
Come, see a man which told me all things that ever I did.’ This 
exaggeration appears to me very natural; especially in the hurried 
state of spirits into which the woman may be supposed to have been 
thrown. 

The la\yyer’s subtilty in running a distinction upon the word 
neighbor, in the precept, ‘ Thou shall love thy neighlxir as thyself,’ 


* Duchal, p. 97, 98. 




Evidences of Christianity. 167 

was no less natural, than our Saviour’s answer was decisive and 
satisfactory (Luke x. 29.) The lawyer of the New Testament, it 
must be observed, was a Jewish divine. 

The behavior of Gallio (Acts xviii. 12—17.) and of Festus (xxv. 18, 
19.) have been observed upon already. 

The consistency ol Saint Paul’s character throughout the whole 
of his history {viz. the warmth and activity of his zeal, first against, 
and then for Christianity), carries with it very much the appearance 

There are also some properties, as they may be called, observable 
in the Gospels: that is, circumstances separately suiting with the 
situation, character, and intention, of their respective authors. 

Saint Matthew, who was an inhabitant of Galilee, and did not 
join Christ’s society until some time after Christ had come into 
Galilee to preach, has given us very little of his history prior to that 
period. Saint John, who had been converted before, and who 
wrote to supply omissions in the other Gospels, relates some re¬ 
markable particulars, which had taken place before Christ left 
Judea, to go into Galilee.* 

Saint Matthew (xv. 1.) has recorded the cavil of the Pharisees 
against the disciples of Jesus, for eating ‘ with unclean hands.’ 
Saint Mark has also (vii. 1.) recorded the same transaction (taken 
probably from Saint Matthew), but with this addition; ‘For the 
Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands often, 
eat not, holding the tradition of the elders : and when they come 
from the market, except they wash, they eat not; and many other 
things there be which they nave received to hold, as the washing 
of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.’ Now Saint Mat¬ 
thew was not only a Jew himself, but it is evident, from the whole 
structure of his Gospel, especially from his numerous references to 
the Old Testament, that he wrote for Jewish readers. The above 
explanation, therefore, in him, would have been unnatural, as not 
being wanted by the readers whom he addressed. But in Mark, 
who, whatever use he might make of Matthew’s Gospel, intended 
his own narrative for a general circulation, and who himself trav¬ 
elled to distant countries in the service of the religion, it was 
properly added. 


CHAP. IV. 

Identity of Christ's Character. 

The argument expressed by this title, I apply principally to the 
comparison of the first three Gospels with that of Saint John. It is 
known to every reader of Scripture, that the passages of Christ’s 
history, preserved by Saint John, are, except his passion and resur¬ 
rection, for the most part, different from those which are delivered 


* Hartley’s Observations, vol. ii. p. 103 



168 Foley's View of the 

by the other evangelists. And I think the ancient account of this 
difference to be the true one, viz. that Saint John wrote after the 
rest, and to supply what he thought omissions in their narratives, of 
which the principal were our Saviour’s conferences with the Jews 
of Jerusalem, and his discourses to his apostles at his last supper. 
But what I observe in the comparison of these several accounts is, 
that, although actions and discourses are ascribed to Christ by Saint 
John, in general different from what are given to him by the other 
evangelists, yet, under this diversity, there is a similitude of manner, 
which indicates that the actions and discourses proceeded from the 
same person. I should have laid little stress upon the repetition of 
actions substantially alike, or of discourses containing many of the 
same expressions, because that is a species of resemblance, which 
would either belong to a true history, or might easily be imitated in 
a false one. Nor do I deny, that a dramatic writer is able to ps- 
tain propriety and distinction of character, through a great variety 
of separate incidents and situations. But the evangelists w ere not 
dramatic writers; nor possessed the talents of dramatic writers; 
nor will it, I believe, be suspected, that they studied uniformity of 
character, or ever thought of any such thing, in the person who was 
the subject of their histories. Such uniformity, if it exists, is on 
their part casual; and if there be, as I contend there is, a percepti¬ 
ble resemblance of manner, in passages, and between discourses, 
which are in themselves extremely distinct, and are delivered by 
historians writing without any imitation of, or reference to, one an¬ 
other, it affords a just presumption, that these are, what they pro¬ 
fess to be, the actions and the discourses of the same real person ; 
that the evangelists wrote from fact, and not from imagination. 

The article in which I find this agreement most strong, is in our 
Saviour’s mode of teaching, and in that particular property of it, 
which consists in his drawing of his doctrine from the occasion; or, 
which is nearly the same thing, raising reflections from the objects 
and incidents before him, or turning a particular discourse then pass¬ 
ing, into an opportunity of general instruction. 

Jt will be my business to point out this manner in the first three 
evangelists; and then to inquire, whether it do not appear also, in 
several examples of Christ’s discourses, preserved by Saint John. 

The reader will observe in the following quotations, that the Italic 
letter contains the reflection; the common letter, the incident or 
occasion from which it springs. 

Matt. xii. 47—50. ‘Then they said unto him. Behold, thy mother 
and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he 
answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and 
who are my brethren ? And he stretched forth his hand towards 
his disciples, and said. Behold my mother and my brethren: for who¬ 
soever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is 
my brother, and sister, and mother.' 

Matt. xvi. 5. ‘ And when his disciples were come to the other side, 
they had forgotten to take bread; then Jesus said unto them, Take 
heed, and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the Sadducees. 


Evidences of Christianity. 169 

And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have 
taken no bread.—How is it that ye do not understand, that I spake 
it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven 
of the Pharisees, and of the Sadducees? Then understood they, 
how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doc¬ 
trine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.'” 

Matt. XV. 1, 2. 10, 11. 15—20. ‘Then came to Jesus scribes and 
Pharisees, which W’ere of Jerusalem, saying. Why do thy disciples 
transgress the traditions of the elders? for they wash not their hands 

when they eat bread.-And he called the multitude, and said 

unto them. Hear and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth 
defleth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a 

man. -^Then answered Peter, and said unto him, Declare unto us 

this parable. And Jesus said. Are ye also yet without understand¬ 
ing ? Do ye not yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the 
mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? but 
those things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the 
heart, and they defile the man: for out of the heart proceed evil 
thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blas¬ 
phemies 7 these are the things which defile a man: but to eat with 
UNWASHEN HANDS DEFILETH NOT A MAN.’ Our Saviour, On this 
occasion, expatiates rather more at large than usual, and his dis¬ 
course also is more divided: but the concluding sentence brings 
back the whole train of thought to the incident in the first verse, 
viz. the objurgatory question of the Pharisees, and renders it evident 
that the whole sprang from that circumstance. 

Mark x. 13—15. ■‘And they brought young children to him, that 
he should touch them ; and his disciples rebuked those that brought 
them: but when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said 
unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid 
them not; for of such is the kingdom of God: verily I say unto you. 
Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a Utae child, he 
shall not enter therein.' 

Mark i. 16, 17. ‘ Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw 
Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea, for they 
were fishers: and Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will 
make you fishers of men.' 

Luke xi. 27. ‘ And it came to pass as he spake these things, a cer¬ 
tain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him. 
Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast 
sucked : but he said. Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the word 
of God and keep it.' 

Luke xiii. 1—3. ‘There were present at that season, some that 
told him of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their 
sacrifices; and Jesus answering, said unto them, Suppose ye, that 
these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suf¬ 
fered such things 1 I tell you. Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all 
likewise perish.' 

Luke xiv. 15. ‘ And when one of them thst sat at meat with him 

P 


170 


Paley's View of the 

heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat 
bread in the kingdom of God. Then said he unto him, A certain 
man made a great supper, and hade many,' &c. The parable is rather 
too long for insertion, but affords a striking instance of Christ’s man¬ 
ner of raising a discourse from the occasion. Observe also in the 
same chapter two other examples of advice, drawn from the circum¬ 
stances of the entertainment and the behavior of the guests. 

We will now see, how this manner discovers itself in St. Johns 
history of Christ. 

John vi. 25. ‘ And when they had found him on the other side of 
the sea, they said unto him. Rabbi, when earnest thou hither? Jesus 
answered them, and said. Verily I say unto you, ye seek me not 
because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, 
and were filled. Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that 
meat which endureth unto everlasting lije, which the Son of man shall 
give unto you.' 

John iv. 12. ‘ Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who gave 
us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his 
cattle ? Jesus answered, and said unto her (the woman of Samaria), 
Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again; but whosoever 
drinketh of the uater that I shall give him, shall never thirst; but the 
water that I shall give him, shall be in him a well of uxiter, springing 
up into everlasting life.' 

John iv. 31. ‘In the mean while,his disciples prayed him, saying. 
Master, eat; but he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know 
not of Therefore said the disciples one to another. Hath any man 
brought him aught to eat ? Jesus saith unto them. My meat is, to do 
the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.' 

John ix. 1—5. ‘ And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man w'hich was 
blind from his birth; and his disciples asked him, saying. Who did 
sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, 
Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of 
God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him 
that sent me, while it is day; the night cometh, when no man can work. 
As long as 1 am in the world, I am the light of the world.' 

John ix. 35—40. ‘ Jesus heard that they had cast him (the blind 
man above mentioned) out: and when he had found him, he said 
unto him. Dost thou believe on the Son of God? And he answered, 
and said. Who is he. Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus 
said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh 
with thee. And he said. Lord, I believe; and he worshipped him. 
And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they 
which see not, might see; and that they which see, might be made blind,.' 

All that the reader has now to do, is to compare the series of 
examples taken from Saint John with the series of examples 
taken from the other evangelists, and to judge whether there 
be not a visible agreement in the manner between them. In the 
above-quoted passages, the occasion is stated, as well as the reflec¬ 
tion. They seem, therefore, the most proper for the purpose of our 
argument. A large, however, and curious collection has been made 


Evidences of Christianity. 171 

by different writersof instances, in which it is extremely probable 
that Christ spoke in allusion to some object, or some occasion, then 
before him, though the mention of the occasion, or of the object, be 
omitted in the history. I only observe, that these instances are com¬ 
mon to Saint John’s Gospel with the other three. 

I conclude this article by remarking, that nothing of this manner 
is perceptible in the speeches recorded in the Acts, or in any other 
but those which are attributed to Christ, and that, in truth, it was a 
very unlikely manner for a forger or fabulist to attempt; and a man¬ 
ner very difficult for any writer to execute, if he had to supply all 
the materials, both the incidents and the observations upon them, 
out of his own head. A forger or a fabulist would have made for 
Christ, discourses exhorting to virtue and dissuading from vice in 
general terms. It would never have entered into the thoughts of 
either, to have crowded together such a number of allusions to time, 
place, and other little circumstances, as occur, for instance, in the 
sermon on the mount, and which nothing but the actual presence 
of the objects could have suggested.! 

IT. There appears to me to exist an affinity between the history 
of Christ’s placing a lirle child in the midst of his disciples, as re¬ 
lated by the first three evangelists,! and the history of Christ’s 
washing his disciples’ feet, as given by Saint John.$ In the stories 
themselves there is no resemblance. But the affinity which I 
vyould point out consists in these two articles : First, that both sto¬ 
ries denote the emulation which prevailed amongst Christ’s disci¬ 
ples, and his own care and desire to correct it; the moral of both 
IS the same. Second!/, that both stories are specimens of the same 
manner of teaching, viz. by action; a mode of emblematic instruc¬ 
tion extremely peculiar, and, in these passages, ascribed, we see, to 
our Saviour, by the first three evangelists, and by Saint John, in in¬ 
stances totally unlike, and without the smallest suspicion of their 
borrowing from each other. 

III. A singularity in Christ’s language, which runs through all 
the evangelists, and which is found m those discourses of Saint 
John that have nothing similar to them in the other Gospels, is the 
appellation of ‘ the Son of man;’ and it is in all the evangelists 
found under the peculiar circumstance of being applied by Christ 
to himself, but of never being used of him, or towards him, by any 
other person. It occurs seventeen times in Matthew’s Gospel, 
twenty times in Mark’s, twenty-one times in Luke’s, and eleven 
times in John’s, and always with this restriction. 

IV. A point of agreement in the conduct of Christ, as represented 
by his different historians, is that of his withdrawing himself out of 
the way, whenever the behavior of the multitude indicated a dis¬ 
position to tumult. 


* Newton on Daniel, p. 148. note a. Jortin, Dis. p. 213. Bishop Law’s 
Life of Christ. 

t See Bishop Law’s Life of Christ, 
j Matt, xviii. i. Mark ix. 33. Luke ix. 46. 


§ Chap. xiii. 3. 



172 


Paley^s Vieic of the 

Matt. xiv. 22. ‘ And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples 
to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while 
he sent the multitude away. And when he had sent the multitude 
away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray.’ 

Luke V. 15, 16. ‘But so much the more went there a fame 
abroad of him, and great multitudes came together to hear, and to 
be healed by him of their infirmities: and he withdrew himself 
into the wilderness, and prayed.’ 

With these quotations, compare the following from Saint John: 

Chap. V. 13. ‘ And he that was healed wist not w'ho it was; for 
Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.’ 

Chap. vi. 15. ‘ When Jesus therefore perceived that they would 
come and take him by force to make him a king, he departed again 
into a mountain himself alone.’ 

In this last instance. Saint John gives the motive of Christ’s con- 
dict, which is left unexplained by the other evangelists, who have 
elated the conduct itself 

V. Another, and a more singular circumstance in Christ’s ministry, 
was the reserve, which, for some time, and upon some occasions at 
least, he used in declaring his own character and his leaving it to 
Be collected from his works rather than his professions. Just rea¬ 
sons for this reserve have been assigned.’’' But it is not what one 
would have expected. We meet with it in Saint Matthew’s Gos¬ 
pel : chap. xvi. 20. ‘ Then charged he his disciples, that they 
should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.’ Again, and upon 
a different occasion, in Saint Mark’s: chap. iii. 11. ‘And unclean 
spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying. 
Thou art the Son of God: and he straitly charged them that they 
should not make him known.’ Another instance similar to this last 
is recorded by Saint Luke, chap. iv. 41. What we thus find in the 
three evangelists, appears also in a passage of Saint John, chap. x. 
24, 25. ‘ Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him. 
How long dost thou make us to doubt ? If thou be the Christ, tell us 
plainly.’ The occasion here was different from any of the rest; and 
it w'as indirect. We only discover Christ’s conduct through the 
upbraidings of his adversaries. But all this strengthens the argu¬ 
ment. I had rather at any time surprise a coincidence in some 
oblique allusion, than read it in broad assertions. 

VI. In our Lord’s commerce with his disciples, one very observa¬ 
ble particular is the difficulty which they found in understanding 
him, when he spoke to them of the future part of his history, espe¬ 
cially of what related to his passion or resurrection. This difficulty 
produced, as was natural, a wish in them to ask for farther explana¬ 
tion ; from which, however, they appear to have been sometimes 
kept back, by the fear of giving offence. All these circumstances 
are distinctly noticed by Mark and Luke upon the occasion of his 
informing them (probably for the first time), that the Son of man 
should be delivered into the hands of men. ‘ They understood not,' 


* See Locke’s Reasonableness of Christianity. 



Evidences of Christianity. 173 

the evangelists tell us, ‘this saying, and it was hid from them, that 
they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.’ 
Luke ix. 45. Mark ix. 32. In Saint John’s Gospel we have, on a 
different occasion, and in a different instance, the same difficulty of 
apprehension, the same curiosity, and the same restraint —‘ A little 
while, and ye shall not see me : and again, a little while, and ye 
shall see me; because I go to the Father. Then said some of his 
disciples among themselves, AVhat is this that he saith unto us? A 
little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, A little while,and 
ye shall see me : and. Because I go to the Father ? They said there¬ 
fore, What is this that he saith, A little while ? we cannot tell what 
he saith. Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and 
said unto them,’ &c. John xvi. 16, &c. 

VII. The meekness of Christ during his last sufferings, which is 
conspicuous in the narratives of the first three evangelists, is pre¬ 
served in that of Saint John under separate examples. The answer 
given by him, in Saint John,* when the high-priest asked him of 
his disciples and his doctrine; ‘ I spake openly to the world ; I ever 
taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews al¬ 
ways resort; and in secret have I said nothing; why askest thou 
me ? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto themis 
very much of a piece with his reply to the armed party which 
seized him, as we read in Saint Mark’s Gospel, and in Saint 
Luke’s :t ‘ Are you come out as against a thief, with swords and 
with staves to take me ? I was daily with you in the temple teach- 
ing, and ye took me not.’. In both answers, we discern the same 
tranquillity, the same reference to his public teaching. His mild 
expostulation with Pilate, on two several occasions, as related by 
Saint John,t is delivered with the same unruffled temper, as that 
which conducted him through the last scene of his life, as described 
by his other evangelists. His answer in Saint John’s Gospel, to the 
officer who struck him with the palm of his hand, ‘If I have spoken 
evil, bear witness of the evil ,* but if well, why smitest thou me ?’$ 
was such an answer, as might have been looked for from the per¬ 
son, who, as he proceeded to the place of execution, bid his com¬ 
panions (as we are told by Saint Luke),ll weep not for him, but for 
themselves, their posterity, and their country; and who, whilst he 
was suspended upon the cross, prayed for his murderers, ‘for they 
know not,’ said he, ‘ what they do.’ The urgency also of his judges 
and his prosecutors to extort from him a defence to the accusation, 
and his unwillingness to make any (which was a peculiar circum¬ 
stance), appears in Saint John’s account, as well as in that of the 
other evangelists.^ 

There are moreover two other correspondences betw'een Saint 
John’s history of the transaction and theirs, of a kind somewhat dif¬ 
ferent from those which we have been now mentioning. 


* Chap, xviii. 20, 21. f Mark xiv. 48. Luke xxii. 52. 

I Chap, xviii. 34. xix. 11. § Chap, xviii. 23. || Chap, xxiii. 28. 

IT See John xix. 9. Matt, xxvii. 14. Luke xxiii. 9. 


P2 



174 Foley’s View of the 

The first three evangelists record what is called our Saviour’s 
agony, i. e. his devotion in the garden immediately before he was 
apprehended; in which narrative they all make him pray, ‘that 
the cup might pass from him.’ This is the particular metaphor 
which they all ascribe to him. Saint Matthew adds, ‘ O my Father, 
if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will 
be done.’* Now Saint John does not give the scene in the garden: 
but when Jesus was seized, and some resistance was attempted to 
be made by Peter, Jesus, according to his account, checked the at¬ 
tempt with this reply: ‘ Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup 
which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it ?’t This is 
something more than consistency; it is coincidence: because it is 
extremely natural, that Jesus, who, before he was apprehended, 
had been praying his Father, that ‘ that cup might pass from him,’ 
yet with such a pious retraction of his request, as to have added, 
• If this cup may not pass from me, thy will be doneit was natu¬ 
ral, I say, for the same person, when he actually was apprehended, 
to express the resignation to which he had already made up his 
thoughts, and to express it in the form of speech which he had be¬ 
fore used, ‘The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not 
drink it V This is a coincidence between writers, in whose narra¬ 
tives there is no imitation, but great diversity. 

A second similar correspondency is the following: Matthew and 
Mark make a charge, upon which our Lord was condemned, to be 
a threat of destroying the temple; ‘ We heard him say, I will destroy 
this temple made with hands, and within three days I will builS 
another made without hands :’t but they neither of them inform us, 
upon what circumstances this calumny was founded. Saint John, 
in the early part of the history,$ supplies us with this information; 
for he relates, that, on our Lord’s first journey to Jerusalem, when 
the Jews asked him, ‘What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that 
thou doest these things ? he answered. Destroy this temple, and in 
three days I will raise it up.’ This agreement could hardly arise 
from any thing but the truth of the case. From any care or design 
in Saint John, to make his narrative tally with the narratives of 
other evangelists, it certainly did not arise, for no such design ap¬ 
pears, but the absence of it. 

A strong and more general instance of agreement is the following. 
—The first three evangelists have related the appointment of the 
twelve apostles,! I and have given a catalogue of their names in form. 
John, without ever mentioning the appointment, or giving the cata¬ 
logue, supposes, throughout his whole narrative, Christ to be accom¬ 
panied W a select party of his disciples; the number of those to be 
twelve ;lf and whenever he happens to notice any one of that num¬ 
ber,** it is one included in the catalogue of the other evangelists: 


t Chap, xviii. 11. J Mark xiv. 58. 

II Matt. X. 1. Mark iii. 14. Luke vi. 12. 

** Chap. XX. 24. vi. 71. 


* Chap, xxvi.42. 
§ Chap. ii. 19. 

IT Chap. vi. 70. 



Evidences of Christianity. 175 

and the names principally occurring in the course of Ms history of 
Christ, are the names extant in their list. This last agreement, which 
is of considerable moment, runs through every Gospel, and through 
every chapter of each. 

All this bespeaks reality. 


CHAP. V. 

Originality of our Saviour's Character. 

The Jews, whether right or wrong, had understood their prophe¬ 
cies to foretell the advent of a person, who by some supernatural 
assistance should advance their nation to independence, and to a 
supreme degree of splendor and prosperity. This was the reigning 
opinion and expectation of the times. 

Now, had Jesus been an enthusiast, it is probable that his enthu¬ 
siasm would have fallen in with the popular delusion, and that, 
whilst he gave himself out to be the person intended by these pre¬ 
dictions, he would have assumed the character to whicn they were 
universally supposed to relate. 

Had he been an impostor, it was his business to have flattered the 
prevailing hopes, because these hopes were to be the instruments 
of his attraction and success*' 

But, what is better than conjecture, is the fact, that all the pre¬ 
tended Messiahs actually did so. We learn from Josephus, that 
there were many of these. Some of them, it is probable, might be 
impostors, who thought that an advantage was to be taken of the 
state of public opinion. Others, perhaps, were enthusiasts, whose 
imagination had been drawn to this particular object, by the lan¬ 
guage and sentiments which prevailed around them. But, whether 
impostors or enthusiasts, they concurred in producing themselves in 
the character which their countrymen looked for, that is to say, as 
the restorers and deliverers of the nation, in that sense in which 
restoration and deliverance were expected by the Jews. 

Why therefore Jesus, if he was, like them, either an enthusiast or 
impostor, did not pursue the same conduct as th^ did, in framing 
his character and pretensions, it will be found difficult to explain. 
A mission, the operation and benefit of which was to take place in 
another life, was a thing un thought of as the subject of these proph¬ 
ecies. That Jesus, coming to them as their Messiah, should come 
under a character totally different from that in which they expected 
him; should deviate from the general persuasion, and deviate into 
pretensions absolutely singular and original; appears to be incon¬ 
sistent with the imputation of enthusiasm or imposture, both which, 
by their nature, I should expect would, and botn which, throughout 
the experience which this very subject furnishes, in fact have fol¬ 
lowed the opinions that obtained at the time. 

If it be said, that Jesus, having tried the other plan, turned at 


176 


Paley^s View of the 

length to this; I answer, that the thing is said without e\idence^ 
against evidence; that it was competent to the rest to have done the 
same, yet that nothing of this sort was thought of by any. 


CHAP. VI. 

Conformity of the facts occasionally mentioned or referred to in Scrip 

ture, with the state of things in those times as represented by foreign 

and independent accounts. 

One argument, which has been much relied upon (but not more 
than its just weight deserves), is the conformity of the facts occa¬ 
sionally mentioned or referred to in Scripture, with the state of things 
in those times, as represented by foreign and independent accounts; 
which conformity proves, that the writers of the New Testament 
possessed a species of local knowledge, which could only belong to 
an inhabitant of that country, and to one living in that age. This 
argument, if well made out by examples, is very little short of 
proving the absolute genuineness of the writings. It carries them 
up to the age of the reputed authors, to an age in which it must 
have been difficult to impose upon the Christian public, forgeries in 
the names of those authors, and in which there is no evidence that 
any forgeries were attempted. It proves, at least, that the books, 
whoever were the authors of them, were composed by persons liv¬ 
ing in the time and country in which these things were transacted; 
and consequently capable, by their situation, of being well informed 
of the facts which they relate. And the argument is stronger when 
applied to the New Testament, than it is in the case of almost any 
other writings, by reason of the mixed nature of the allusions which 
this book contains. The scene of action is not confined to a single 
country, but displayed in the greatest cities of the Roman empire. 
Allusions are made to the manners and principles of the Greeks, 
the Romans, and the Jews. This variety renders a forgery propor- 
tionably more difficult, especially to w'riters of a posterior age. A 
Greek or Roman Christian, who lived in the second or third cen¬ 
tury, would have been wanting in Jewish literature ; a Jewish con¬ 
vert in those ages would have been equally deficient in the know¬ 
ledge of Greece and Rome.'*' 

This, how'ever, is an argument which depends entirely upon an 
induction of particulars; and as, consequently, it carries with it little 
force, without a view of the instances upon which it is built, I have 
to request the reader’s attention to a detail of examples, distinctly 
and articulately proposed. In collecting these examples, I have done 
no more than epitomize the first volume of the first part of Dr. Lard- 
ner’s Credibility of the Gospel History. And I have brought the 
argument within its present compass, first, by passing over some ef 


* Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament (Marsh’s Transla¬ 
tion), c. 2. sect. xi. 



Evidences of Christianity. 177 

his sections in which the accordancy appeared to me less certain, or 
upon subjects not sufficiently appropriate or circumstantial; secondly, 
by contracting every section into the fewest words possible, content¬ 
ing myself for the most part with a mere apposition of passages; and, 
thirdly, by omitting many disquisitions, which, though learned and 
accurate, are not absolutely necessary to the understanding or veri¬ 
fication of the argument. 

The writer principally made use of m the inquiry, is Josephus. 
Josephus was born at Jerusalem four years after Christ’s ascension. 
He wrote his history of the Jewish war some time after the destruc¬ 
tion of Jerusalem, which happened in the year of our Lord Lxx, 
that is, thirty-seven years after the ascension; and his histoiy of the 
Jews he finished in the year xciii, that is, sixty years after the 
ascension. 

At the head of each article, I have referred, by figures included 
in brackets, to the page of Dr. Lardner’s volume, where the section, 
from which the abridgment is made, begins. The edition used, is 
that of 1741. 

I. [p. 14.] Matt. ii. 22. ‘ Wlien he (Joseph) heard that Archelaus 
did reim in Judea, in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to 
go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he 
turned aside into the parts of Galilee.’ 

In this passage it is asserted, that Archelaus succeeded Herod in 
Judea; and it is implied, that his power did not extend to Galilee. 
Now we learn from Josephus, that Herod the Great, whose dominion 
included all the land -of Israel, appointed Archelaus his successor in 
Judea, and assigned the rest of his dominions to other sons; and that 
this disposition was ratified, as to the main parts of it, by the Roman 
emperor.* 

Saint Matthew says, that Archelaus reigned, was king in Judea. 
Agreeably to this, we are informed by Josephus, not only that Herod 
appointed Archelaus his successor in Judea, but that he also ap¬ 
pointed him with the title of King; and the Greek verb BairiXtvti, 
which the evangelist uses to denote the government and rank of 
Archelaus, is used likewise by Josephus.t 

The cruelty of Archelaus’s character, which is not obscurely inti¬ 
mated by the evangelist, agrees with divers particulars in his history, 
preserved by Josephus:—‘In the tenth year of his government, the 
chief of the Jews and Samaritans, not being able to endure his 
cruelty and tyranny, presented complaints against him to Caesar.’t 

II. [p. 19.] Luke iii. 1. ‘In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tibe¬ 
rius Caesar,—Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip 
tetrarch of Iturea and of the region of Trachonitis,—the word of 
God came unto John.’ 

By the will of Herod the Great, and the decree of Augustus there¬ 
upon, his two sons were appointed, one (Herod Antipas) tetrarch of 


* Antiq. lib. xvii. c. 8. sect. 1. 

1 Antiq. lib. xvii. c. 13. sect. 1. 


t De Bell. lib. i. c. 33. sect. 7. 



178 


Paley^s View of the 

Galilee and Persea, and the other (Philip) tetrarch of Trachonitis and 
the neighboring countries.'*' We have therefore these two persons 
in the situations in which Saint Luke places them; and also, that 
they were in these situations in the ffteenth year of Tiberius; in 
other words, that they continued in possession of their territori^ 
and titles until that time, and afterward, appears from a passage in 
Josephus, which relates of Herod, ‘ that he was removed by Caligula, 
the successor of Tiberius ;t and of Philip, that he died in the twen¬ 
tieth year of Tiberius, w'hen he had governed Trachonitis and Bata- 
nea and Gaulanitis thirty-seven years.’t 

III. [p. 20.] Mark vi. 17.$ ‘ Herod had sent forth, and laid hold 
upon John, and bound him in prison, for Herodias’ sake, his brother 
Philip’s wife ; for he had married her.’ 

With this compare Joseph. Antiq. 1. xviii. 6. sect. 1.—‘He (Herod 
the tetrarch) made a visit to Herod his brother.—Here, falling in 
love with Herodias, the wife of the said Herod, he ventured to make 
her proposals of marriage.’!! 

Again, Mark vi. 22. ‘ And when the daughter of the said Herodias 
came in and danced-.’ 

With this also compare Joseph. Antiq. 1. xviii. c. 6. sect.4. ‘Hero¬ 
dias was married to Herod, son of Herod the Great. They had a 
daughter, whose name was Salome; after whose birth, Herodias, in 
utter violation of the laws of her country, left her husband, then 
living, and married Herod the tetrarch of Galilee, her husband’s 
brother by the father’s side.’ 

IV. [p. 29.] Acts xii. 1. ‘ Now, about that time, Herod the king 
stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.’ In the con¬ 
clusion of the same chapter, Herod’s death is represented to have 
taken place soon after this persecution. The accuracy of our histo¬ 
rian, or, rather, the unmeditated coincidence, which truth of its own 
accord produces, is in this instance remarkable. There was no por¬ 
tion of time, for thirty years before, nor ever afterward, in which 
there was a king at Jerusalem, a person exercising that authority in 
Judea, or to whom that title could be applied, except the three last 
years of this Herod's life, within which period the transaction re- 


* Ant lib. xvii. c. 8. sect. 1. t Ibid. lib. xviii. c. 8. sect. 2. 

J Ibid. c. 5. sect. fi. § See also Matt. xiv. 1—13. Luke iii. 19. 

11 The affinity of the two accounts is unquestionable; but there is a 
difference in the name of Herodias’s first husband, which, in the evan¬ 
gelist, is Philip; in Josephus, Herod. The difficulty, however, will not 
appear considerable, when we recollect how common it was in those 
times for the same person to bear two names. ‘ Simon, which is called 
Peter; Lebbeus, whose surname is Thaddeus; Thomas, which is called 
Didynius; Simeon, who was called Niger: Saul, who was also called 
Paul.’ The solution is rendered likewise easier in the present case, by 
the consideration, that Herod the Great had children by seven or eight 
wives; that Josephus mentions three of his sons under the name of Herod: 
that it is nevertheless highly probable, that the brothers bore some addi¬ 
tional name, by which they were distinguished from one another.—Lard- 
ner, vol. ii. p. 897. 



Evidences of Christianity. 179 

corded in the Acts is stated to have taken place. This prince was 
the grandson of Herod the Great. In the Acts, he appears under 
his family-name of Herod; by Josephus he was called Agrippa. For 
proof that he was a king, properly so called, w'e have the testimony 
of Josephus in full and direct terms:—‘ Sending for him to his palace, 
Caligula put a crown upon his head, and appointed him king of the 
tetrarchie of Philip, intending also to give him the tetrarchie of Ly- 
^anias.’* And that Judea was at last, but not until the last, included 
in his dominions, appears by a subsequent passage of the same Jose¬ 
phus, wherein he tells us, that Claudius, by a decree, confirmed to 
Agrippa the dominion which Caligula had given him; adding also 
Jadea and Samaria, in the utmost extent, as possessed by his grand¬ 
father Herod.f 

V. [p. 32.] Acts xii. 19—23. ‘ And he (Herod) went down from 
Judea to Cesarea, and there abode.—And on a set day, Herod, 
arrayed in ro)ml apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration 
unto them: and the people gave a shout, saying. It is the voice of a 
god, and not of a man; and immediately the angel of the Lord smote 
him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, 
and gave up the ghost.’ 

Joseph, Antiq. lib. xix. c. 8. sect 2. ‘He went to the city of Cesa¬ 
rea. Here he celebrated shows in honor of Ca;sar. On the second 
day of the shows, early in the morning, he came into the theatre, 
dressed in a robe of silver, of most curious w’orkmanship. The rays 
of the rising sun, reflected from such a splendid garb, gave him a 
majestic and awfhl appearance. They called him a god; and en¬ 
treated him to be propitious to them, saying. Hitherto we have 
respected you as a man; but now W'e acknowledge you to be more 
than mortal. The king neither reproved these persons, nor rejected 
the impious flattery.—Immediately after this, he was seized with 
pains in his bowels, extremely violent at the vety first.—He was 
carried therefore with all haste to his palace. These pains con¬ 
tinually tormenting him, he expired in five days’ time.’ 

The reader will perceive the accordancy of these accounts in 
various particulars. The place (Cesarea), the set day, the gorgeous 
dress, the acclamations of the assembly, the peculiar turn of the 
flattery, the reception of it, the sudden and critical incursion of the 
disease, are circumstances noticed in both narratives. The worms, 
mentioned by Saint Luke, are not remarked by Josephus; but the 
appearance of these is a symptom, not unusually, I believe, attending 
the diseases which Josephus describes, viz. violent aflections of the 
bowels. 

VI. [p. 41.] Acts xxiv. 24. ‘And after certain days, when Fehx 
came with his wife Brasilia, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul.’ 

Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. c. 6. sect 1, 2. ‘Agrippa gave his sister 
Drusilla in marriage to Azizus, king of the Emesenes, when he had 
consented to be circumcised.—But this marriage of Drusilla with 


* Antiq. xviii. c. 7. sect. 10. 


t Ib. xix. c. 5 . sect. 1. 



180 Paley's View of the 

Azizus was dissolved in a short time after this manner:—When 
Felix was procurator of Judea, having had a sight of her, he was 
mightily taken with her.—She was induced to transgress the laws 
of her country, and marry Felix.’ 

Here the public station of Felix, the name of his wife, and the 
singular circumstance of her religion, all appear in perfect con¬ 
formity with the evangelist. 

VII. [p. 46.] ‘And after certain days, king Agrippa and Bernice 
came to Cesarea to salute Festus.’ By this passage we nre in effect 
told, that Agrippa was a king, but not of Judea; for he came to 
salute Festus, who at this time administered the government of that 
country at Cesarea. 

Now, how does the history of the age correspond with this ac¬ 
count? The Agrippa here spoken of, was the son of Herod Agrippa. 
mentioned in the last article; but that he did not succeed to his 
father’s kingdom, nor ever recovered Judea, which had been a part 
of it, we learn by the information of Josephus, who relates of him 
that, when his father w'as dead, Claudius intended, at first, to have 
put him immediately in possession of his father’s dominions; but 
that, Agrippa being then but seventeen years of age, the emperor 
was persuaded to alter his mind, and appointed Cuspius Fad us pre¬ 
fect of Judea, and the whole kingdom;* which Fadus was suc¬ 
ceeded by Tiberius Alexander, Cumanus, Felix, Festus.t But that, 
though disappointed of his father’s kingdom, in which was included 
Judea, he was nevertheless rightly styled King Agrippa, and that 
he was in possession of considerable territories bordering upon 
Judea, we gather from the same authority; for, after several suc¬ 
cessive donations of country, ‘ Claudius, at the same time that he 
sent Felix to be procurator of Judea, promoted Agrippa from Chalcis 
to a greater kingdom, giving to him the tetrarchie which had been 
Philip’s; and he added moreover the kingdom of Lysanias, and the 
province that had belonged to Varus.’] 

Saint Paul addresses this person as a Jew: ‘ King Agrippa, be- 
lievest thou the prophets ? I know that thou believest.’ As the son 
of Herod Agrippa, who is described by Josephus to have been a 
zealous Jew, it is reasonable to suppose that he maintained the 
same profession. But what is more material to remark, because it 
is more close and circumstantial, is, that Saint Luke, speaking of 
the father, (Acts xii. 1—3.) calls him Herod the king, and gives an 
example of the exercise of his authority at Jerusalem: speaking of 
the son, (xxv. 13.) he calls him king, but not of Judea; which dis¬ 
tinction agrees correctly with the history. 

VIII. [p. 51.] Acts xiii. 6. ‘ And when they had gone through the 
isle (Cyprus) to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false 
prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus, which was with the 
deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man.’ 


* Antiq. xix. c. 9. ad fin. 
t De Bell. lib. ii. c. 12. ad fin. 


t Ib. XX. De Bell. lib. ii. 



Evidences of Christianity. 181 

The word, which is here translated deputy, signifies proconsul, 
and upon this word our observation is founded. The provinces of 
the Roman empire were of two kinds; those belonging to the em¬ 
peror, in which the governor was called propraetor; and those be¬ 
longing to the senate, in which the governor was called proconsul. 
And this was a regular distinction. Now it appears from Dio Cas¬ 
sius,* that the province of Cyprus, which in the original distribution 
was assigned to the emperor, had been transferred to the senate, in 
exchange for some others; and that, after this exchange, the ap¬ 
propriate title of the Roman governor was proconsul. 

Ib. xviii. 12. [p. 55.] ‘And when Gallio was deputy (proconsul) of 
Achaia.’ 

The propriety of the title ‘ proconsul,’ is in this passage still more 
critical. For the province of Achaia, after passing from the senate 
to the emperor, had been restored again by the emperor Claudius to 
the senate (and consequently its government had become proconsu¬ 
lar) only six or seven years before the time in which this transac¬ 
tion is said to have taken place.t And what confines with strictness 
the appellation to the time is, that Achaia under the following 
reign ceased to be a Roman province at all. 

IX. [p. 152.] It appears, as well from the general constitution of a 
Roman province, as from what Josephus delivers concerning the 
state of Judea in particular.t that the power of life and death 
resided exclusively in the Roman governor; but that the Jews, 
nevertheless, had magistrates and a council, invested with a sub¬ 
ordinate and municipal authority. This economy is discerned in 
every part of the Gospel narrative of our Saviour’s crucifixion. 

X. [p. 203.] Acts ix. 31. ‘Then had the churches rest throughout 
all Judea and Galilee and Samaria.’ 

This rest synchronizes with the attempt of Caligula to place his 
statue in the temple of Jerusalem; the threat of which outrage pro¬ 
duced amongst the Jews a consternation that, for a season, diverted 
their attention from every other object.^ 

XI. [p. 218.] Acts xxi. 30. ‘ And they took Paul, and drew him 
out of the temple; and forthwith the doors were shut And as 
they went about to kill him, tidings came to the chief captain of 
the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. Then the chief 
captain came near, and commanded him to be bound with two 
chains, and demanded, who he was, and what he had done ; and 
some cried one thing, and some another, among the multitude: 
and, when he could not know the certainty for the tumult, he com¬ 
manded him to be carried into the castle. And when he came upon 
the stairs, so it was, that he was borne of the soldiers for the vio¬ 
lence of the people.’ 

In this quotation, we have the band of Roman soldiers at Jeru¬ 
salem, their office (to suppress tumults), the castle, the stairs, 

♦ De Bell. lib. liv. ad. A. U. 732. 
t Suet in Claud, c. 25. Dio, lib. Ixi. 
j Anliq. lib. xx. c. 8. sect. 5. c. 1. sect. 2. 

§ Joseph, de Bell. lib. xi. c. 13. sect. 1. 3, 4. 


Q 



182 Paley^s View of the 

both, as it should seem, adjoining to the temple. liet us inquire 
whether we can find these particulars in any other record of that 
age and place. 

Joseph, de Bell. lib. v. c. 5. sect. 8. ‘ Antonia was situated at the 
angle of the western and northern f^rticoes of the outer temple. It 
was built upon a rock fifty cubits high, steep on all sides.—On that 
side where it joined to the porticoes of the temple, there w'ere flairs 
reaching to each portico, by which the guard descended ; for there 
was always lodged here a Roman legion, and posting themselves in 
their armor in several places in the porticoes, they kept a watch on 
the people on the feast-days to prevent all disorders; Ibr as the tem¬ 
ple was a guard to the city, so was Antonia to the temple.’ 

XII. [p. 224.] Acts iv. 1. ‘ And as they spake unto the people, the 
priests, and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees, came upon 
them.’ Here we have a public officer, under the title of captain of 
the temple, and he probably a Jew, as he accompanied the priests 
and Sadducees in apprehending the apostles. 

Joseph, de Bell. lib. n. c. 17. sect. 2. ‘ And at the temple, Eleazar, 
the son of Ananias, the high-priest, a young man of a bold and reso¬ 
lute disposition, then captain, persuaded those who performed the 
sacred ministrations not to receive the gift or sacrifice from any 
stranger.’ 

XIII. [p. 225.] Acts XXV. 12. ‘Then Festus, when he had con¬ 
ferred with the council, answered. Hast thou appealed unto Cajsar? 
unto Caesar shalt thou go.’ That it was usual for the Roman presi¬ 
dents to have a council, consisting of their friends, and other chief 
Romans in the province, appears expressly in the following passage 
of Cicero’s oration against Verres:—‘Illud negare posses, aut nunc 
negabis, te, concilio tuo dimisso, viris primariis, qui in consilio C. 
Sacerdotis fuerant, tibique esse volebant, remotis, de re judicata 
judicasse ?’ 

XIV. [p. 235.] Acts xvi. 13. ‘And (at Philippi) on the sabbath we 
went out of the city by a nver-side, where prayer was wont to be 
made,’ or where a irpoatv^^p, oratory, or place of prayer, was allow ed. 
The particularity to be remarked, is the situation of the place where 
prayer was wont to be made, viz. by a river-side. 

Philo, describing the conduct of the Jews of Alexandria, on a cer¬ 
tain public occasion, relates of them, that ‘early in the morning, 
flocking out of the gates of the city, they go to the neighboring 
shores (for the irpoacvxai were destroyed), and, standing in a most 
pure place, they lift up their voices with one accord.’"*' 

Josephus gives us a decree of the city of Halicarnassus, permit¬ 
ting the Jews to build oratories; a part of which decree runs thus •. 

-‘ We ordain that the Jews who are willing, men and women, do 
observe the sabbaths, and perform sacred rites according to the 
Jewish laws, and build oratories by the sea-sidelf 

Tertullian, among other Jewish rites and customs, such as feasts. 


* Philo in Place, p. 382. 

T Joseph. Antiq. lib. xiv. c. 10. sect. 24. 



Evidences of Christianity. 183 

sabbaths, fasts, and xmleavened bread, mentions ‘ orationes litorales;' 
that is, prayers by the river-side.’* 

Xy. [p. 255.] Acts xxvi. 5. ‘ After the most straitest sect of our 
religion, I lived a Pharisee.’ 

Joseph, de Bell. lib. i. c. 5. sect 2. ‘The Pharisees were reckoned 
the most religious of any of the Jews, and to be the most exact and 
skilful in explaining the laws.’ 

In the original, there is an agreement not only in the sense, but 
in the exprpsion, it being the same Greek adjective, which is ren¬ 
dered ‘strait’ in the Acts, and ‘exact’ in Josephus. 

XVI. [p. 255.] Mark vii. 3, 4. ‘ The Pharisees and all the Jews, 
except they wph, eat not holding the tradition of the elders; and 
many other things there be which they have received to hold.’ 

Joseph. Antkj. lib. xiii. c. 10. sect 6. ‘ The Pharisees have de¬ 
livered to the people many institutions, as received from the fathers, 
which are not written in the law of Moses.’ 

XVII. [p. 259.] Acts :xxiii. 8. ‘ For the Sadducees say, that there 
is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees con¬ 
fess both.’ 

Joseph, de Bell. lib. c. 8. sect 14. ‘They (the Pharisees) believe 
every soul to be immortal, but that the soul of the good only passes 
into another body, and that the soul of the wicked is punishea with 
eternal punishment’ On the other hand, (Antiq. lib. xviii. c. 1. 
sect 4.) ‘It is the opinion of the Sadducees, that souls perish with 
the bodies.’ 

XVIII. [p. 268.] Acts V. 17. ‘Then the high-priest rose up, and 
all they that were with him (t^hich is the sect of the Sadducees), 
and were filled with indignation.’ Saint Luke here intimates, that 
the high-priest was a Sadducee; which is a character one would 
not have expected to meet with in that station. The circumstance, 
remarkable as it is, was not however without examples. 

Joseph. Antiq. lib. xiii. c. 10. sect. 6, 7. * John Hyrcanus, high- 
priest of the Jews, forsook the Pharisees upon a disgust, and Joined 
himself to the party of the Sadducees.’ This high-priest died one 
hundred and seven years before the Christian era. 

Again, (Antiq. lib. xx. c. 8. sect. 1.) ‘This Ananus the younger, 
who, as we have said just now, had received the high-priesthood, 
was fierce and haughty in his behavior, and, above all men, bold 
and daring, and, moreover, was of the sect of the Sadducees.' This 
high-priest lived little more than twenty-years after the transaction 
in the Acts. 

XIX. [p. 282.] Luke ix. 51. ‘ And it came to pass, when the time 
was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face 
to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before his face. And they 
went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready 
for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as 
though he would go to Jerusalem.’ 

Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. c. 5. sect. 1. ‘ It was the custom of the 


* Tertull. ad Nat. lib. i. c. 13. 



184 


Paley^s View of the 

Galileans, who went up to the holy city at the feasts, to travel 
through the country of Samaria. As they were in their journey, 
some inhabitants of the village called Ginsea, which lies on the 
borders of Samaria and the great plain, falling upon them, killed a 
great many of them.’ 

XX. [p. 278.] John iv. 20. ‘Our fathers,’ said the Samaritan 
woman, ‘ worshipped in this mountain ; and ye say, that Jerusalem 
is the place where men ought to worship.’ 

Joseph. Antiq. lib. xviii. c. 5. sect. 1. ‘ Commanding them to meet 
him at mount Gerizim, which is by them (the Samaritans) esteemed 
the most sacred of all mountains.’ 

XXI. [p. 812.] Matt. xxvi. 3. ‘Then assembled together the 
chief priests, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the 
high-priest, who was called Caiaphas.’ That Caiaphas was high- 

f )riest, and high-priest throughout the presidentship of Pontius Pi- 
ate, and consequently at this time, appears from the following ac¬ 
count:—He was made high-priest by Valerius Gratus, predecessor 
of Pontius Pilate, and was removed from his office by Vitellius, 
president of Syria, after Pilate was sent away out of the province 
of Judea. Josephus relates the advancement of Caiaphas to the 
high-priesthood in this manner: ‘ Gratus gave the high-priesthood 
to Simon, the son of Camithus. He having enjoyed this honor not 
above a year, was succeeded by Joseph, who is also called Caiaphas.* 
After this, Gratus went away for Rome, having been eleven years 
in Judea; and Pontius Pilate came thither as his successor.^ Of the 
remi/val of Caiaphas from his office, Josephus, likewise, afterward 
informs us; and connects it with a circumstance which fixes the 
time to a date subsequent to the determination of Pilate’s govern¬ 
ment—‘ Vitellius,’ he tells us, ‘ ordered Pilate to repair to Rcnne ; 
and after that, went up himself to Jerusalem, and then gave direc¬ 
tions concerning several matters. And having done these things, 
he took away the priesthood from the high-priest Joseph, who is 
called Caiaphas.^i 

XXH. (Michaelis. c. xi. sect. 11.) Acts xxiii. 4. ‘ And th^ that 
st(wd by, said, Revilest thou God’s high-priest ? Then said Paul, I 
wist not, brethren, that he was the high-priest.’ Now, upon inquiry 
into the history of the age, it turns out, that Ananias, of whom this 
is spoken, was, in truth, not the high-priest, though he was sitting in 
judgment in that assumed capacity. The case was, that he had 
formerly holden the office, and had been deposed ; that the person 
who succeeded him had been murdered; that another was not yet 
appointed to the station ; and that, during the vacancy, he had, of 
his own authority, taken upon himself the discharge of the office.J 
This singular situation of the high-priesthood took place during the 
interval between the death of Jonathan, who was murdered by 


* Antiq. lib. xviii. c. 2. sect. 2. 
t Ibid. 1. xvii. c. 5. sect. 3. 
i Ibid. 1. XX. c. 5. sect. 2; c. 9. sect. 2. 



Evidences of Christianity, 185 

^er of Felix, and the accession of Ismael who was invested with 
the high-pnesthood by Agrippa; and precisely in this interval it 
happened that Saint Paul was apprehended, and brought before 
the Jewish council. ° 

XXIII. [p. 323.] Matt. xxvi. 59. ‘Now the chief priests and 
elders, and all the council, sought false witness against him.’ 

Jos^eph. Antiq. hb. xviii. c. 15. sect. 3, 4. ‘ Then might be seen 
the high-priests Viemselves, with ashes on their heads, and their 
breasts naked. 

The agreement here consists in speaking of the high-priests or 
chief priests (for the name in the original is the same) in the plural 
numo^ , when, in strictness, there w'as only one high-priest: which 
may be considered as a proof, that the evangelists were habituated 
to the manner of speaking then in use, because they retain it when 
It IS neither accurate nor just. For the sake of brevity, I have put 
u —only a single example of the application of 
this title in the plural number; but it is his usual style. 

r rf JP’ ‘ the fifteenth year of the reign 

XT ^ j Cffisar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and 
Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, Annas and Caiaphas being the high^ 
priests, the word of God came unto John.’ There is a passage in 
Josephus very nearly parallel to this, and which may at least serve 
to vindicate the evangelists from objection, with respect to his giv¬ 
ing the title of high-priest specifically to two persons at the same 
time: ‘ Quadratus sent two others of the most powerful men of the 
Jews, as also the high-pnests Jonathan and Ananias:* That Annas 
was a person in an eminent station, and possessed an authority co¬ 
ordinate with, or next to, that of the high-priest properly so called, 
may be inferred from Saint John’s Gospel, which, in the history of 
Christ s crucifixion, relates that ‘ the soldiers led him away to Annas 
hrst. t And this might be noticed as an example of undesigned 
coincidence in the two evangelists. 

Agaii^ [p. 870.] Acts iv. 6. Annas is called the high-priest, 
though Caiaphas was in the office of the high-priesthood. In like 
manner, in Josephus,]: Joseph the son of Gorion, and the high-priest 
Ananus, were chosen to be supreme governors of all things in the 
city. Yet Ananus, though here called the high-priest Ananus, was 
not then in the office of the high priesthood. The truth is, there is 
an indeterminateness in the use of this title in the Gospel: some¬ 
times It IS applied exclusively to the person who held the office at 
the time ; sometimes to one or two more, who probably shared with 
him s(^e of the powers or functions of the office; and, sometimes, 
to such of the priests as were eminent by their station or character ;$ 

^ very same indeterminateness in Josephus. 

X^V [p. 347.] John xix. 19, 20. ‘And Pilate wrote a title, and 
jmt It on the cross. That such was the custom of the Romans on 
these occasions, appears from passages of Suetonius and Dio Cas 


• De Bell. lib. ix. c. 12. sect. 6. 
X Lib. ii. c. 20. sect. 3. 


t xviii. 13. 

§ Mark xiv. 53. 
Q2 



186 


Paley's View of the 

sius‘ Patrem familias—canibus objecit, cum hoc iitnlo, Impie locu¬ 
lus’ parmularius.’ Suet. Domit. cap. x. And in Dio Cassius we 
ha've the following: ‘Having led him through the midst of the 
court or assembly, with a ■writing ngnifying the cause of his death, 
and afterward crucifying him.’ Book liv. 

Ib. ‘ And it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.’ That 
it was also usual about this time, in Jerusalem, to set up advertise¬ 
ments in different languages, is gathered from the account which 
Josephus gives of an expostulatory message from Titus to the Jews, 
v^hen the city was almost in his hands; in which he says. Did ye 
not erect pillars with inscriptions on them, in the Greek and in our 
language, ‘ Let no one pass beyond these bounds.’ 

XaV. [p. 352.] Matt, xxvii. 26. ‘When he had scourged Jesus, he 
delivered him to be crucified.’ 

The following passages occur in Josephus: 

‘ Being beaten, they were crucified opposite to the citadel.’* 

‘ Whom, having^rsi scourged with whips, he crucified.’! 

‘ He was burnt alive, having been first beaten'X 

To which may be added one from Livy, lib. xi. c. 5. ‘Productique 
omnes, virgisque ccesi, ac securi percussi.’ 

A modern example may illustrate the use we make of this in¬ 
stance. The preceding, of a capital execution by the corporal pun¬ 
ishment of the sutferer, is a practice unknown in England, but 
retained, in some instances at least, as appears by the late execution 
of a regicide, in Sweden. This circumstance, therefore, in the 
account of an English execution, purporting to come from an Eng¬ 
lish writer, would not only bring a suspicion upon the truth of the 
account, but would, in a considerable degree, impeach its preten¬ 
sions of having been written by the author whose name it bore 
Whereas the same circumstance, in the account of a Swedish exe 
cution, would verify the account, and support the authenticity of the 
book in which it was found; or, at least, would prove that the au¬ 
thor, whoever he was, possessed the information and the knowledge 
which he ought to possess. 

XXVI. [p. 353.] John xix. 16. ‘ And they took Jesus, and led him 
away ; and he, bearing his cross, went forth.’ 

Plutarch, De iis qui sero puniuntur. p. 554: a Paris, 1624. ‘ Every 
kind of wickedness produces its own particular torment, just as 
every malefactor, when he is brought forth to execution carries his 
own cross.’ 

XXVII. John xix. 32. ‘ Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs 
of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.’ 

Constantine abolished the punishment of the cross; in commend¬ 
ing which edict, a heathen writer notices this very circumstance of 
breaking the legs: ‘Eo pins, ut etiam vetus veterrimumque suppli 
cium, patibulum, et cruribus suffringendis, primus removerit.’ Aur 
Viet. Ces. cap. xli. 


t P. 1080, edit. 45. 


* P. 1247, edit. 24. Huds. 
J P. 1327, edit. 43. 




Evidences of Christianity. 187 

XXVIII. [p. 457.] Acts iii. 1. ‘Now Peter and John went up to¬ 
gether into the temple, at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.’ 

Joseph. Antiq. hb. xv. c. 7. sect. 8. ‘ Twice every day, in the morn- 
V * perform their duty at the altar.’ 

XXIX. [p 462.] Acts XV. 21. ‘For Moses, of old time, hath, in 
them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every 

Joseph, contra Ap. 1. ii. ‘He (Moses) gave us the law; the most 
excellent of all institutions; nor did he appoint that it should be 
heard once only, or twice, or often, but that laying aside all other 
works, we should meet together every week to hear it read, and grain 
a perfect understanding of it.’ 

XXX. [p. 465.] Acts xxi. 23. ‘We have four men, which have a 
vow on them; them take, and purify thyself with them, that they 
may shave their heads' 

Jose^. de Bell. 1. xi. c. 15. ‘It is customary for those who have 
afflicted with some distemper, or have laoored under any other 
diflicultms, to make a vow thirty days before they offer sacrifices, to 
abstain from wine, and shave the hair of their heads' 

Ib. V. 24. ‘ Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at 
charges with th^, that they may shave their heads.' 

Joseph. Antiq. 1. xix. c. 6. ‘ He (Herod Agrippa) coming to Jerusa¬ 
lem, offered up sacrifices of thanksgiving, and omitted nothing that 
was prescribed by the law. For which reason he also ordered a good 
number of Nazarites to be shaved.' We here find that it was an act 
of piety amongst the Jews, to defray for those who were under the 
Nazarite vow the expenses which attended its completion; and that 
the phrase was, ‘ that they might be shaved.’ The custom and the 
expression are Ixtth remarkable, and both in close conformity with 
the Scripture account. 

XXXI. [p. 474.] 2 Cor. xi. 24. ‘ Of the Jews five times received I 
forty stripes, save erne.' 

Joseph. Antiq. iv. c. 8. sect. 21. ‘He that acts contrary hereto, let 
him receive forty stripes, wanting one, from the public officer.’ 

The coincidence here is singular, because the law allowed forty 
stripes:—‘Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed.’ Deut. 
XXV. 3. It proves that the author of the Epistle to the Corinthians 
wp guided, not by books, but by facts; because his statement agrees 
with the actual custom, even when that custom deviated from the 
written law, and from what he must have learnt by consulting the 
Jewish code, as set forth in the Old Testament. 

XXXII. [p. 490.] Luke iii. 12. ‘Then came also publicans to be 
baptized. From this quotation, as well as from the history of Levi 
or Matthew (Luke v. 29.) and of Zaccheus, (Luke xix. 2.) it appears, 
that the publicans or tax-gatherers were, frequently, at least, if not 
always. Jews: which, as the country was then under a Roman gov¬ 
ernment, and the taxes were paid to the Romans, was a circum¬ 
stance not to be expected. That it was the truth however of the 
case, appears, from a short passage of Josephus. 

De Bell. lib. li. c. 14. sect. 45. ‘But, Florus not restraining these 


188 


Paley^s View of the 

practices by his authority, the chief men of the Jews, amovg whom 
was John the publican, not knowing well what course to take, w’ait 
upon Florus, and give him eight talents of silver to stop the building.* 

XXXIII. [p. 496.] Acts xxii. 25. ‘ And as they bound him with 
thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by. Is it lawful for 
you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned ? ’ 

‘Facinus est vinciri civem Romanum; scelus verberari.’ Cic. in 
Verr. 

‘ Caedebatur virgis, in medio foro Messanse, civis Romanus, Judi- 
ces: cum interea nullus gemitus, nulla vox alia, istius miseri inter 
dolorem crepitumque plagarum audiebatur, nisi haec, Civis Romanus 
sum.' 

XXXIV. [p. 513.] Acts xxii. 27. ‘Then the chief captain came, 
and said unto him (Paul), Tell me, art thou a Roman ? He said. Yea.’ 
The circumstance here to be noticed is, that a Jew was a Roman 
citizen. 

Joseph. Antiq. lib. xiv. c. 10. sect. 13. ‘ Lucius Lentulus, the consul 
declared, 1 have dismissed from the service the Jewish Roman citi 
zens, who observe the rites of the Jewish religion at Ephesus.’ 

Ib. V. 28. ‘ And the chief captain answered, With a great sum 
obtained I this freedom' 

Dio Cassius, lib. lx. ‘This privilege, which had been bought for¬ 
merly at a great price, became so cheap, that it was commonly said, 
a man might be made a Roman citizen for a few pieces of broken 
glass.’ 

XXXV. [p. 521.] Acts xxviii. 16. ‘And when we came to Rome, 
the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard ; 
but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself, with a soldier that kept 
him' 

With which join ver. 20. ‘ For the hope of Israel, I am bound 
with this chain' 

‘Quemadmodiim eadem catena et custodiam eimilitem copulat; sic 
ista, quae tarn dissimilia sunt, pariter incedunt.’ Seneca, Ep. v. 

‘ Proconsul aestimare solet, utriim in carcerem recipienda sit per¬ 
sona, an militi tradenda.' Ulpian, 1. i. sect. De Custod. et Exhib. 
Reor. 

In the confinement of Agrippa by the order of Tiberius, Antonia 
managed, that the centurion who presided over the guards, and the 
soldier to whom Agrippa was to be bound, might be men of mild char¬ 
acter. (Joseph. Antiq. lib. xviii. c. 7. sect. 5.) After the accession of 
Caligula, Agrippa also, like Paul, was suffered to dwell, yet as a 
prisoner, in his own house. 

XXXVI. [p. 531.] Acts xxvii. 1. ‘ And when it was determined 
that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul, and certain other 
prisoners, unto one named Julius.’ Since not only Paul but certain 
other prisoners were sent by the same ship into Italy, the text must 
be considered as carrying with it an intimation, that the sending of 
persons from Judea to be tried at Rome, was an ordinary practice. 
That in truth it was so, is made out by a variety of examples which 
the writings of Josephus furnish; and, amongst others, by the fbl 


Evidences of Christianity. 189 

[owing, which comes near both to the time and the subject of the 
instance in the Acts. ‘ Felix, for some slight offence, hound and sent 
to Rome several priests of his acquaintance, and very good and 
honest men, to answer for themselves to Ciesar,’ Joseph, in Vit. 
sect. 3. 

XXXVII. [p. 539.] Acts xi. 27. ‘And in these days came prophets 
from Jerusalem unto Antioch; and there stood up one of them 
named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be a 
great dearth throughout all the world (or all the country); which 
came to pass in the days of Claudius CcBsar.' 

Joseph. Antiq. 1. xx. c. 4. sect. 2. ‘ In their time (i. e. about the 
fifth or sixth year of Claudius) a great dearth happened in Judea.’ 

XXXVIII. [p. 555.] Acts xviii. 1, 2. ‘Because that Claudius had 
commanded all Jews to depart from Rome.’ 

Suet. Claud, c. xxv. ‘ Judseos, impulsore Chresto assidue tumul- 
tuantes, Roma expulit.’ 

XXXIX. [p. 664.] Acts v. 37. ‘ j4fler this man, rose up Judas of 
Galilee, in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after 
him.’ 

Joseph, de Bell. 1. vii. ‘ He {viz. the person who in another place 
is called, by Josephus, Judas the Galilean or Judas of Galilee) per¬ 
suaded not a few not to enrol themselves, when Cyrenius the Cen¬ 
sor was sent into Judea.’ 

XL. [p. 942.] Acts xxi. 38. ‘ Art not thou that Egyptian which, 
before these days, madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wil¬ 
derness four thousand men that were murderers ?’ 

Joseph, de Bell. 1. ii. c. 13. sect. 5. ‘But the Egyptian false 
prophet brought a yet heavier disaster upon the Jews; for this im¬ 
postor, coming into the country, and gaining the reputation of a 
prophet, gathered together thirty thousand men, who were deceived 
by him. Having brought them round out of the wilderness, up to 
the mount of Olives, he intended from thence to make his attack 
upon Jerusalem; but Felix, coming suddenly upon him with the 
Roman soldiers, prevented the attack.’—A great number, (or as it 
should rather be rendered) the greatest part of those that were with 
him, were either slain or taken prisoners. 

In these two passages, the designation of this impostor, an ‘Egyp¬ 
tian,’ without the proper name; ‘the wilderness;’ his escape, 
though his followers were destroyed ; the time of the transaction, 
m the presidentship of Felix, which could not be any long time be¬ 
fore the words in Luke are supposed to have been spoken; are cir¬ 
cumstances of close correspondency. There is one, and only one, 
point of disagreement, and that is, in the number of his followers, 
which in the Acts are called four thousand, and by Josephus thirty 
thousand : but, beside that the names of numbers, more than any 
other words, are liable to the errors of transcribers, we are, in the 
present instance, under the less concern to reconcile the evangelist 
with Josephus, as Josephus is not, in this point, consistent with him¬ 
self. For whereas, in the passages here quoted, he calls the number 
thirty thousand, and tells us that the greatest part, or a great num- 


190 Palei/s View of the 

ber (according as his words are rendered), of those that were with 
him, were destroyed; in his Antiquities, he represents four hundred 
to have been killed upon this occasion, and two hundred taken 
prisoners which certainly was not the ‘ greatest part,’ nor ‘ a great 
part,’ nor ‘ a great number,’ out of thirty thousand. It is probable 
also, that Lysias and Josephus spoke of the expedition in its different 
stages: Lysias, of those who followed the Egyptian out of Jerusa¬ 
lem : Josephus, of all who were collected about him afterward, 
from different quarters. 

XLI. (Lardner’s Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. iii. p. 21.) 
Acts xvii. 22. ‘ Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars-hill, and said. 
Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too supersti¬ 
tious ; for as I passed by and beheld your devotions, Ifound an altar 
with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom there¬ 
fore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.’ 

Diogenes Laertius, who wrote about the year 210, in the history 
of Epimenides, who is supposed to have flourished nearly six hun¬ 
dred years before Christ, relates of him the following story: that, 
being invited to Athens for the purpose, he delivered the city from 
a pestilence in this manner;—‘ Taking several sheep, some black, 
others white, he had them up to the Areopagus, and then let them 
go where they would, and gave orders to those who followed them, 
wherever any of them should lie down, to sacrifice it to the god to 
whom it belonged; and so the plague ceased.—Hence,’ says the 
historian, it has come to pass, that to this present time, may he found 
in the boroughs of the Athenians anonymous altars ; a memorial of 
the expiation then made.’t These altars, it may be presumed, were 
called anonymous, because there was not the name of any particu¬ 
lar deity inscribed upon them. 

Fausanius, who wrote before the end of the second century, in 
his description of Athens, having mentioned an altar of Jupiter 
Olympius, adds, ‘ And nigh unto it is an altar of unhnown ^orfs.’J 
And in another place he speaks ‘ of altars of gods called unknown.'^ 

Philostratus, who wrote in the beginning of the third century, re¬ 
cords it as an observation of Apollonius Tyanaeus, ‘ That it was wise 
to speak well of all the gods, especially at Athens, where altars of 
unknown demons were erected'\\ 

The author of the dialogue Philopatris, by many supposed to have 
been Lucian, who wrote about the year 170, by others some anony¬ 
mous Heathen writer of the fourth century, makes Critias swear by 
the unknown god, of Athens ; and, near the end of the dialogue, has 
these words, ‘But let us find out the unknown god of Athens, and, 
stretching our hands to heaven, offer to him our praises and thanks¬ 
givings.’^ 

This is a very curious and a very important coincidence. It ap>- 


* Lib. 20. c. 7. sect. 6. t In Epimenide, 1. i. segm. 110. 

I Paus. 1. V. p 412. § Paus. 1. i. p. 4. 

II Philos. Apoll. Tyan. 1. vi. c. 3. 

if Lucian, in Philop. tom. ii. Grsev, p. 767. 780. 



Evidences of Christianity. 191 

pears beyond controversy, that altars with this inscription were ex¬ 
isting at Athens, at the time when Saint Paul is alleged to have 
been there. It seems also (which is very worthy of observation), 
that this inscription was peculiar to the Athenians. There is no 
evidence that there were altars inscribed ‘ to the unknown god’ in 
any other country. Supposing the history of Saint Paul to have been 
a fable, how is it possible that such a w nter as the author of the Acts 
of the Apostles was, should hit upon a circumstance so extraordinary, 
and introduce it by an allusion so suitable to Saint Paul’s office 
and character? 

The examples here collected will be sufficient, I hope, to satisfy 
us, that the writers of the Christian history knew something of what 
they were writing about. The argument is also strengthened by 
the following considerations:— 

T. That these agreements appear, not only in articles of public 
history, but sometimes, in minute, recondite, and very peculiar cir¬ 
cumstances, in which, of all others, a forger is most likely to have 
been found tripping. 

II. That the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place forty 
years after the commencement of the Christian institution, produced 
such a change in the state of the country, and the condition of the 
Jews, that a writer who was unacquainted with the circumstances 
of the nation before that event, would find it difficult to avoid mis¬ 
takes, in endeavoring to give detailed accounts of transactions con¬ 
nected with those circumstances, forasmuch as he could no longer 
have a living exemplar to copy from. 

III. That there appears, in the writers of the New Testament, a 
knowledge of the affairs of those times, which we do not find in 
authors of later ages. In particular, ‘many of the Christian writers 
of the second and third centuries, and of the following ages, had 
false notions concerning the state of Judea, between the nativity of 
Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem.’* Therefore they coulci not 
have composed our histories. 

Amidst so many conformities, we are not to w'onder that we meet 
with some difficulties. The principal of these I will put down, to¬ 
gether with the solutions which they have received. But in doing 
this, I must be contented with a brevity better suited to the limits 
of my volume than to the nature of a controversial argument. I'or 
the historical proofs of my assertions, and for the Greek criticisms 
upon which some of them are founded, I refer the reader to the 
second volume of the first part of Dr. Lardner’s large work. 

I. The taxing during which Jesus was bom, was ‘ first made,’ as 
we read, according to our translation, in Saint Luke, ‘ whilst Cyre- 
nins was governor of Syria.’t Now it turns out that Cyrenius was 
not governor of Syria until twelve, or, at the soonest, ten years after 
the birth of Christ; and that a taxing, census, or assessment, was 


* Lardner, part i. vol. ii. p. 960. 


t Chap. ii. ver. 2. 



192 


Paley's View of the 

made in Judea in the beginning of his government. The charge 
therefore, brought against the evangelist is, that, intending to refer 
to this taxing, he has misplaced the date of it by an error of ten or 
twelve years. 

The answer to the accusation is found in his using the w'ord 
* first—‘ And this taxing was first madefor according to the mis¬ 
take imputed to the evangelist, this word could have no significa¬ 
tion whatever; it could have had no place in his narrative; because, 
let it relate to what it will, taxing, census, enrolment, or assessment, 
it imports that the waiter had more than one of those in contempla¬ 
tion. It acquits him therefore of the charge: it is inconsistent with 
the supposition of his knowing only of the taxing in the beginning 
of Cvrenius’s government. And if the evangelist knew (which this 
word proves that he did) of some other taxing beside that, it is too 
much, for the sake of convicting him of a mistake, to lay it down as 
certain that he intended to refer to that. 

The sentence in Saint Luke may be construed thus: ‘ This was the 
first assessment (or enrolment) of Cyrenius, governor of Syria the 
words ‘ governor of Syria ’ being used after the name of Cyrenius 
as his addition or title. And this title belonging to him at the time 
of writing the account, was naturally enough subjoined to his name, 
though acquired after the transaction which the account describes. 
A modern writer, who was not very exact in the choice of his ex¬ 
pressions, in relating the affairs of the East Indies, might easily say, 
that such a thing was done by Governor Hastings; though, in truth, 
the thing had been done by him before his advancement to the sta¬ 
tion from which he received the name of governor. And this, as 
vve contend, is precisely the inaccuracy which has produced the 
difficulty in Saint Luke. 

At any rate, it appears from the form of the expression, that he 
had two taxings or enrolments in contemplation. And if Cyrenius 
had been sent upon this business into Judea, before he became gov¬ 
ernor of Syria (against which supposition there is no proof, but rather 
external evidence of an enrolment going on about this time under 
some person or other),t then the census, on all hands acknowledged 
to have been made by him in the beginning of his government. 


* If the word which we render ‘first,’ be rendered ‘ before,’ which it has 
been strongly contended that the Greek idiom allows of, the whole diffi¬ 
culty vanishes: for then the passage would be,—‘Now this taxing was 
made before Cyrenius was governor of Syria;’ which corresponds with 
the chronology. But I rather choose to argue, that however the word 
‘first’ be rendered, to give it a meaning at all, it militates with the 
objection. In this I think there can be no mistake. 

t Josephus (Antiq. xvii. c. 2. sect. 6,) has this remarkable passage • 
‘When therefore the whole Jewish nation took an oath to be faithful to 
Cffisar, and the interests of the king.’ This transaction corresponds in 
the course of the history with the time of Christ’s birth. What is called 
a census, and which we render taxing, was delivering upon oath an 
account of their property. This might be accompanied with an oath of 
fidelity, or might be mistaken by Josephus for it. 




Evidences of Christianity. IQS' 

would form a second, so as to occasion the other to be called the 
first. 

II. Another chronological objection arises upon a date assigned in 
the beginning of the third chapter of Saint Luke.* ‘JNow in the 
fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,’—Jesus began to be 
about thirty years of age: for, supposing Jesus to have been bom, as 
Saint Matthew, and Saint Luke also himself, relate, in the time of 
Herod, he must, according to the dates given in Josephus and by the 
Roman historians, have been at least thirty-one years of age in the 
fifteenth year of Tiberius. If he was born, as &int Matthew’s nar¬ 
rative intimates, one or two years before Herod’s death, he would 
have been thirty-two or thirty-three years old at that time. 

This is the difficulty: the solution turns upon an alteration in the 
construction of the Greek. Saint Luke’s words in the original are 
allowed, by the general opinion of learned men, to signify, not ‘that 
Jesus begam to be about thirty years of age,’ but ‘ that he was about 
thirty years of age when he began his ministry.’ This construction 
being admitted, the adverb ‘ about’ gives us all the latitude we want, 
and more, especially when applied, as it is in the present instance, 
to a decimal number: for such numbers, even without this qualify¬ 
ing addition, are often used in a laxer sense than is here contended 
fbr.t 

III. Acts V, 36. ‘For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting 
himself to somebody; to whom a number of men, about four 
hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as 
obeyed him, were scattered and brought to naught.’ 

Josephus has preserved the account of an impostor of the name 
of Theudas, who created some disturbances, and was slain; but 
according to the date assigned to this man’s appearance (in which, 
however, it is very possible that Josephus may have been mistakent), 
it must have been, at the least, seven years after Gamaliel’s speech, 
of which this text is a part, was delivered. It has been replied to 
the objection.^ that there might be two impostors of this name: and 
it has been observed, in order to give a general probability to the 
solution, that the same thing appears to have happened in other 
instances of the same kind. It is proved from Josephus, that there 
W'ere not fewer than four persons of the name of Simon within forty 
years, and not fewer than three of the name of Judas within ten 


* Lardner, part i. vol. ii. p. 768. 

t Livy, speaking of the peace which the conduct of Romulus had pro¬ 
cured to the state, during the ichole reign of his successor (Numa), has 
these words :||—‘ Ab illo enim profectis viribus datis tantum valuit, ut, in 
quadraginta deinde annos, tutam pacem haberetyet afterward, in the 
same chapter, ‘ Romulus (he says) septem et triginta regnavit annos. 
Numa tres et quadraginta.’ 

X Michaelis’s Introduction to the New Testament (Marsh’s Transla¬ 
tion), vol. i. p. 61. 

§ Lardner, part i. vol. ii. p. 922. 

II Liv. Hist. c. 1. aect. 16. 

R 



194 Paley's View of the 

years, who were all leaders of insurrections: and it is likewise re¬ 
corded by the historian, that, upon the death of Herod the Great 
(which agrees very well with the time of the commotion referred to 
by Gamaliel, and with his manner of stating that time, ‘ before these 
days ’), there were innumerable disturbances in Judea* Archbishop 
Usher was of opinion, that one of the three Judases above mentioned 
was Gamaliel’s Theudas;t and that with a less variation of the 
name than we actually find in the Gospels, where one of the twelve 
apostles is called, by Luke, Judas; and by Mark, Thaddeus.t Ori- 
gen, however he came at his information, appears to have believed 
that there was an impostor of the name of Theudas before the na¬ 
tivity of Christ.$ 

IV. Matt, xxiii. 34. ‘ Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, 
nnd wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and cru 
cify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and 
persecute them from city to city; that upon you may come all the 
righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous 
Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew 
between the temple and the altar.' 

There is a Zacharias, whose death is related in the second book 
of Chronicles,l| in a manner which perfectly supports our Saviour’s 
allusion. But this Zacharias w.as the son of Jehoiada. 

There is also Zacharias the prophet; who was the son of Bara- 
chiah, and is so described in the superscription of his prophecy, but 
of whose death we have no account. 

I have little doubt, but that the first Zacharias was the person 
spoken of by our Saviour; and that the name of the father has been 
since added, or changed, by some one, who took it from the title of 
the prophecy, which happened to be better known to him than the 
history in the Chronicles. 

There is likewise a Zacharias, the son of Baruch, related by Jose¬ 
phus to have been slain in the temple a few years before the de¬ 
struction of Jerusalem. It has been insinuated, that the words put 
into our Saviour’s mouth contain a reference to this transaction, and 
were composed by some writer, who either confounded the time of 
the transaction with our Saviour’s age, or inadvertently overlooked 
the anachronism. 

Now suppose it to have been so; suppose these words to have 
been suggested by the transaction related in Josephus, and to have 
been falsely ascribed to Christ; and observe what extraordinary 


* Antiq. 1. xvii. c 12. sect. 4. t Annals, p. 797. 

I Luke vi. 16. Mark iii. 18. § Orig. cont. Cels. p. 44. 

[I And the Spirit of Cod came upon Zecharia, the son of Jehoiada the 
priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them. Thus saith God, 
Why transgress ye the commandments of the Lord, that ye cannot pros¬ 
per? Because ye have forsaken the Lord, he hath also forsaken you. 
And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones, at the com- 
mandment of the king, in the court of the house of the Lord. 2 Chron. xxiv. 
20 , 21 . 



Evidences of Christianity. 195 

coincidences (accidentally, as it must in that case have been) attend 
the forger’s mistake. 

First, that we have a Zacharias in the book of Chronicles, whose 
death, and the manner of it, corresponds with the allusion. 

Secondly, that although the name of this person’s father be erro¬ 
neously put down in the Gospel, vet we have a way of accounting 
for the error, by showing another Zacharias in the Jewish Scriptures, 
much better known than the former, whose patronymic was actually 
that which appears in the text. 

Every one who thinks upon the subjpct, will find these to be cir¬ 
cumstances which could not have met together in a mistake, which 
did not proceed from the circumstances themselves. 

I have noticed, I think, all the difficulties of this kind. They are 
few: some of them admit of a clear, others of a probable solution. 
The reader will compare them with the number, the variety, the 
closenep, and the satisfactoriness, of the instances which are to be 
set against them: and he will remember the scantiness, in many 
cases, of our intelligence, and that difficulties always attend imper¬ 
fect information 


CHAP. VII. 

Undesigned Coincidences. 

Between the letters which bear the name of Saint Paul in our 
collection, and his history in the Acts of the Apostles, there exist 
many notes of correspondency. The simple perusal of the writings 
is sufficient to prove, that neither the history was taken from the 
letters, nor the letters from the histoiy. And the undesignedness of 
the agreements (which undesignedness is gathered from their 
latency, their minuteness, their obliquity, the suitableness of the 
circumstances in which they consist, to the places in which those 
circumstances occur, and the circuitous references by which they 
are traced out) demonstrates that they have not been produced by 
meditation, or by any fraudulent contrivance. But coincidences 
from which these causes are excluded, and which are too close and 
numerous to be accounted for by accidental concurrences of fiction, 
must necessarily have truth for their foundation. 

This argument appeared to my mind of so much value (espe¬ 
cially for its assuming nothing beside the existence of the books), 
that I have pursued it through St. Paul’s thirteen epistles, in a work 
published by me four years ago, under the title of Horae Paulinae. 
I am sensible how feebly any argument which depends upon an in¬ 
duction of particulars, is represented without examples. On which 
account, I wished to have abridged my own volume, in the manner 
in which I have treated Dr. Lardner’s in the preceding chapter. 
But, upon making the attempt, I did not find it in my power to 
render the articles intelligible by fewer words than I nave there 
used. I must be content, therefore, to refer the reader to the work 


196 


Puley's View of the 

Itself- And I would particularly invite his attention to the observa 
tions which are made in it upon the first three epistles. I persuade 
myself that he will find the proofs, both of agreement and unde¬ 
signedness, supplied by these epistles, sufficient to support the con¬ 
clusion which is there maintained, in favor both of the genuineness 
of the writings and the truth of the narrative. 

It remains only, in this place, to point out how the argument 
hears upon the general question of the Christian history^ 

First, Saint Paul in these letters affirms in unequivocal terms, his 
own performance of miracles, and, what ought particularly to be 
remembered, ‘ That miracles were the signs (f an apostle'* If this 
testimony come from St. Paul’s own hand, it is invaluable. And 
that it does so, the argument before us fixes in my mind a firm as¬ 
surance. 

Secondly, it shows that the series of action represented in the 
epistles of Saint Paul, was real; which alone lays a foundation for 
the proposition which forms the subject of the first part of our pres¬ 
ent work, viz. that the original witnesses of the Christian history 
devoted themselves to lives of toil, suffering, and danger, in conse¬ 
quence of their belief of the truth of that history, and for the sake 
of communicating the knowledge of it to others. 

Thirdly, it proves that Luke, or whoever was the author of the 
Acts of the Apostles (for the argument does not depend upon the 
name of the author, though I know no reason for questioning it), 
was well acquainted with Saint Paul’s history; and that he proba¬ 
bly was, what he professes himself to be, a companion of Saint 
Paul’s travels; which, if true, establishes, in a considerable degree, 
the credit even of his Gospel, because it shows, that the w'riter, 
from his time, situation, and connexion, possessed opportunities of 
informing himself truly concerning the transactions which he relates. 
I have little difficulty in applying to the Gospel of Saint Luke what 
is proved concerning the Acts of the Apostles, considering them as 
two parts of the same history; for, though there are instances of 
second parts being forgeries, I know none where the second part is 
genuine, and the first not so. 

I will only observe, as a sequel of the argument, though not no¬ 
ticed in my work, the remarkable similitude between the style of 
Saint John’s Gospel, and of Saint John’s Epistle. The style of Saint 
John’s is not at all the style of Saint Paul’s Epistles, though both 
are very singular; nor is it the style of Saint James’s nor of Saint 
Peter’s Epistle : but it bears a resemblance to the style of the Gos¬ 
pel inscribed with Saint John’s name, so far as that resemblance 
can be expected to appear, which is not in simple narrative, so 
much as in reflections, and in the representation of discourses. 
Writings, so circumstanced, prove themselves, and one another, to 
be genuine. This correspondency is the more valuable, as the 
epistle itself asserts, in Saint John’s manner indeed, but in terms 
sufficiently explicit, the writer’s personal knowledge of Christ’s 


* Rom. XV. 18,19. 2 Cor. xii. 12. 



Evidences of Christianity. 197 

history: ‘That which was from the beginning, which we have 
heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked 
upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life; that which 
we have seen and heard, declare we unto you.’* Who would not 
desire,—who perceives not the value of an account, delivered by a 
writer so well informed as this ? 


CHAP. VIII. 

Of the History of the Resurrection. 

The history of the resurrection of Christ is a part of the evidence 
of Christianity: but I do not know, whether the proper strength of 
this passage of the Christian history, or wherein its peculiar value, 
as a head of evidence, consists, be generally understood. It is not 
that, ^ a miracle, the resurrection ought to be accounted a more 
decisive proof of supernatural agency than other miracles are; it is 
not that, as it stands in the Gospels, it is better attested than some 
others; it is not, for either of these reasons, that more weight be¬ 
longs to it than to other miracles, but for the following, viz. That 
it is completely certain that the apostles of Christ, and the first 
teachers of Christianity, asserted the fact. And this would have 
been certain, if the four Gospels had been lost, or never written. 
Every piece of Scripture recognizes the resurrection. Every epistle 
of every apostle, every author contemporary with the apostles, of 
the age immediately succeeding the apostles, every writing from 
that age to the present, genuine or spurious, on the side of Chris¬ 
tianity or against it, concur in representing the resurrection of 
Christ as an article of his history, received without doubt or disa¬ 
greement by all who call themselves Christians, as alleged from the 
beginning by the propagators of the institution, and alleged as the 
centre of their testimony. Nothing, I apprehend, which a man does 
not himself see or hear, can be more certain to him than this point. 
I do not mean, that nothing can be more certain than that Christ rose 
from the dead; but that nothing can be more certain, than that his 
apostles, and the first teachers of Christianity, gave out that he did 
so. In the other parts of the gospel narrative, a question may be 
made, whether the things related of Christ be the very things which 
the apostles and first teachers of the religion delivered concerning 
him ? And this question depends a good deal upon the evidence we 
possess of the genuineness, or rather, perhaps, of the antiquity, 
credit, and reception, of the books. On the subject of the resurrec¬ 
tion, no such discussion is necessary, because no stich doubt can be 
entertained. The only points which can enter into our considera¬ 
tion are, whether the apostles knowingly published a falsehood, or 
whether they were themselves deceived; whether either of these 
suppositions be possible. The first, I think, is pretty generally 


Chap. i. ver. 1—3. 


R2 



198 


Paley's View of the 

given up. The nature of the undertaking, and of the men; the ex¬ 
treme unlikelihood that such men should engage in such a measure 
as a scheme; their personal toils, and dangers, and sufferings, in the 
cause; their appropriation of their whole time to the object; the 
warm, and seemingly unaffected, zeal and earnestness with which 
they profess their sincerity; exempt their memory from the suspi¬ 
cion of imposture. The solution more deserving of notice, is that 
which would resolve the conduct of the apostles into enthusiasm; 
which would class the evidence of Christ’s resurrection with the 
numerous stories that are extant of the apparitions of dead men. 
There are circumstances in the narrative, as it is preserved in our 
histories, which destroy this comparison entirely. It was not one 
person, but many, who saw him; they saw him not only separately 
but together, not only by night but by day; not at a distance but 
near; not once but several times; they not only saw him, but 
touched him, conversed with him, ate with him, examined his per¬ 
son to satisfy their doubts. These particulars are decisive: but 
they stand, I do admit, upon the credit of our records. I would an¬ 
swer, therefore, the insinuation of enthusiasm, by a circumstance 
which arises out of the nature of the thing; and the reality of 
which must be confessed by all who allow, what I believe is not 
denied, that the resurrection of Christ, whether true or false, was 
asserted by his disciples from the beginning; and that circumstance 
is, the non-production of the dead body. It is related in the history, 
what indeed the story of the resurrection necessarily implies, that 
the corpse was missing out of the sepulchre: it is related also in 
the history, that the Jews reported that the followers of Christ had 
stolen it away.* And this account, though loaded with great im¬ 
probabilities, such as the situation of the disciples, their fears for 
their own safety at the time, the unlikelihood of their expecting to 
succeed, the difficulty of actual success,! and the inevitable conse¬ 
quence of detection and failure, was, nevertheless, the most credi¬ 
ble account that could be given of the matter. But it proceeds 
entirely upon the supposition of fraud, as all the old objections did. 
What account can be given of the body, upon the supposition of en- 


* ‘ And this saying (Saint Matthew writes) is commonly reported 
amongst the Jews until this day.’ (chap xxviii. 15.) The evangelist may 
he thought good authority as to this point, even by those who do not ad¬ 
mit his evidence in every other point: and this point is sufficient to 
prove that the body was missing. 

It has been rightly, I think, observed by Dr. Townshend, (Dis. upon 
the Res. p. 126 ) that the story of the guards carried collusion upon the 
face of it:—‘His disciples came by night and stole him away, while we 
slept.’ Men in their circumstances would not have made such an ac¬ 
knowledgment of their negligence, without previous assurances of pro¬ 
tection and impunity. 

t ‘ Especially at the full moon, the city full of people, many probably 
passing the whole night, as Jesus and his disciples had done, in the open 
air, the sepulchre so near the city as to be now inclosed within the 
walls.’ Priestley on tho Resurr. p. 24. 



Evidences of Christianity, 199 

thusiasm? It is impossible our Lord’s followers could believe that 
he was risen from the dead, if his corpse was lying before them. 
No enthusiasm ever reached to such a pitch of extravagancy as 
that: a spirit mav be an illusion ; a body is a real thing, an object 
ot sense, in which there can be no mistake. All accounts of spec¬ 
ies leave the body in the grave. And, although the body of 
Christ might be removed by fraud, and for the purposes of fraud, 
yet, without any such intention, and by sincere but deluded men 
(which is the representation of the apostolic character we are now 
jamming), no such attempt could be made. The presence and 
the absence of the dead body are alike inconsistent with the hypo¬ 
thesis of enthusiasm; for, if present, it must have cured their en¬ 
thusiasm at once; if absent, fraud, not enthusiasm, must have car¬ 
ried It away. 

But farther, if we admit, upon the concurrent testimony of all the 
histones, so much of the account as states that the religion of Jesus 
was set up at Jerusalem, and set up with asserting, in the very 

C lace in which he had been buried, and a few days after he had 
een buried, his resurrection out of the grave, it is evident that, if 
his body could have been found, the Jews would have produced it, 
^ the shortest and completest answer possible to the whole story 
The attempt of the apostles could not have survived this refutation 
a moment. If we also admit, upon the authority of Saint Matthew', 
that the Jews were advertised of the expectation of Christ’s fol¬ 
lowers, and that they had taken due precaution in consequence of 
this notice, and that the body was in marked and public custody, 
the observation receives more force still. For, notwithstanding 
their precaution, and although thus prepared and forewarned; when 
the story of the resurrection of Christ came forth, as it immediately 
did ; when it was publicly asserted by his disciples, and made the 
ground and basis of their preaching in his name, and collecting fol¬ 
lowers to his religion, the Jews had not the body to produce ; but 
W'ere obliged to meet the testimony of the apostles by an answer, 
not containing indeed any impossibility in itself, but absolutely in¬ 
consistent with the supposition of their integrity; that is, in other 
words, inconsistent with the supposition which would resolve their 
conduct into enthusiasm. 


CHAP. IX. 

The Propagation of Christianity. 

In this argument, the first consideration is the fact; in what de¬ 
gree, within what time, and to what extent, Christianity was actu¬ 
ally propagated. 


200 


Paley's View of tke 


SECT. 1. 

In what degree, within what time, and to what extent, Christianity was 
actually propagated. 

The accounts of the matter, which can be collected from our 
books, are as follows: A few days after Christ’s disappearance out 
of the world, we find an assembly of disciples at Jerusalem, to the 
number of ‘ about one hundred and twenty which hundred and 
twenty were, probably, a little association of believers, met together, 
not merely as believers in Christ, but as personally connected with 
the apostles, and with one another. Whatever was the number of 
believers then in Jerusalem, we have no reason to be surprised that 
so small a company should assemble: for there is no proof, that the 
followers of Christ were yet formed into a society; that the society 
was reduced into any ordler; that it was at this time even under¬ 
stood that a new religion (in the sense which that term conveys to 
us) was to be set up in the world, or how the professors of that reli¬ 
gion were to be distinguished from the rest of mankind. The death 
of Christ had left, we may suppose, the generality of his disciples in 
great doubt, both as to what they were to do, and concerning what 
was to follow. 

This meeting was holden, as we have already said, a few days 
after Christ’s ascension: for, ten days after that event was the day 
of Pentecost, when, as our history relates,t upon a signal display of 
Divine agency attending the persons of the apostles, there were 
added to the society ‘ about three thousand souls.’J But here, it is 
not, I think, to be taken, that these three thousand were all convert¬ 
ed by this single miracle; but rather that many, who before were 
believers in Christ, became now professors of Christianity; that is 
to say, when they found that a religion was to be established, a soci¬ 
ety formed and set up in the name of Christ, governed by his laws, 
avowing their belief in his mission, united amongst themselves, and 
separated from the rest of the world by visible distinctions; in pur¬ 
suance of their former conviction, and by virtue of what they had 
heard and seen and known of Christ’s history, they publicly became 
members of it. 

We read in the fouth chapter^ of the Acts, that, soon after this, 
‘ the number of the men,’ i. e. the society openly professing their 
belief in Christ, ‘ was about five thousand.’ So that here is an in¬ 
crease of two thousand within a very short time. And it is probable 
that there were many, both now and afterward, who, although they 
believed in Christ, did not think it necessary to join themselves to 
this society; or who waited to see what w'as likely to become of it. 
Gamaliel, whose advice to the Jewish council is recorded Acts v. 


* Acts i. IS. 


t Acts ii. 1. 


^ Acts ii. 41. 


§ Ver. 4. 



Evidences of Christianity^ 201 

34, appears to have been of this description; perhaps Nicodemus,. 
and perhaps also Joseph of Arimathea. This class of men, their 
character and their rank, are likewise pointed out by Saint John, in. 
the twelfth chapter of his Gospel: ‘Nevertheless^ among the chief 
rulers also, many believed on him: but because of the Pharisees, 
they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the syna¬ 
gogue, for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.’ 
Persons, such as these, might admit the miracles of Christ, without 
being immediately convinced that they were under obligation to 
make a public profession of Christianity, at the risk of all that was- 
dear to them in life, and even of life itself.* * * § 

Christianity, however, proceeded to increase in Jerusalem by a 
progress equally rapid with its first success; for, in the nextt chap¬ 
ter of our histoiy, we read that ‘ believers were the more added to< 
the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.’ And this enlarge¬ 
ment of the new society appears in the first verse of the succeeding, 
chapter, wherein we are told, that, ‘ when the number of the disci¬ 
ples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against 
the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected :'t and, after¬ 
ward in the same chapter, it is declared expressly,, that ‘ the number 
of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly, and that a great 
company of the priests were obedient to the faith.’ 

I’his I call the first period in the propagation of Christianity. It 
commences with the ascension of Christ, and extends, as may be 
collected from the incidental notes of time,5 to something more than 
one year after that event. During which term, the preaching of 
Christianity, so far as our documents inform us, was confined to the 
single city of Jerusalem. And how did it succeed there ? The first 
assembly which we meet with of Christ’s disciples, and that a few 
days after his removal from the world, consisted of ‘ one hundred 
and twenty.’ About a week after this, ‘ three thousand were added 


* ‘ Beside those who professed, and those who rejected and opposed, 

Christianity, there were, in all probability, multitudes between both, nei¬ 
ther perfect Christians, nor yet unbelievers. They had a favorable opinion 
of the gospel, but worldly considerations made them unwilling to own it^ 
•There were many circumstances which inclined them to think that Chris 
tianity was a Divine revelation, but there were many inconveniences 
which attended the open profession of it: and they could not find in them¬ 
selves courage enough to bear them, to disoblige their friends and family, 
to ruin their fortunes, to lose their reputation, their liberty, and their 
life, for the sake of the new religion. Therefore they were willing to 
hope, that if they endeavored to observe the great principles of morality, 
which Christ had represented as the principal part, the sum and substance, 
of religion; if they thought honorably of the gospel, if they offered no 
injury to the Christians, if they did deem all the services that they could 
safely perform, they were willing to hope, that God would accept this, and 
that He would excuse and forgive the rest.’ Jortin’s Dis. on the Chris. 
Kel. p. 91. ed. 4. 

t Acts V. 14. J Acts vi. 1. 

§ Vide Pearson’s Antiq. 1. xviii. c. 7. Benson’s History of Christ, book 
i. p. 148. 



202 


Foley’s View of the 

in one dayand the number of Christians publicly baptized, and 
publicly associating together, was very soon increased to ‘ five thou¬ 
sand.’ ‘ Multitudes both of men and women continued to be added 
‘ disciples multiplied greatly,’ and ‘ many of the Jewish priesthood, 
as well as others, became obedient to the faith;’ and this w'ithin a 
space of less than two years from the commencement of the insti¬ 
tution. 

By reason of a persecution raised against the church at Jerusalem, 
the converts were driven from that city, and dispersed throughout 
the regions of Judea and Samaria.* Wherever they came, they 
brought their religion with them: for, our historian informs us,t 
that ‘ they that were scattered abroad, went everywhere preaching 
the word.’ The effect of this preaching comes afterward to be 
noticed, where the historian is led, in the course of his narrative, to 
observe, that then, (z. e. about three years posterior to this,t) ‘ the 
churches had rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria, 
and were edified, and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the 
comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.’ This was the work 
of the second period, which comprises about four years. 

Hitherto the preaching of the Gospel had been confined to Jews, 
to Jewish proselytes, and to Samaritans. And I cannot forbear from 
setting down in this place, an observation of Mr. Bryant, which 
appears to me to be perfectly well founded:—‘The Jews still re¬ 
main : but how seldom is it that we can make a single proselyte ! 
There is reason to think, that there were more converted by the 
apostles in one day, than have since been won over in the last thou¬ 
sand years.’§ 

It was not yet knovm to the apostles, that they were at liberty to 
propose the religion to mankind at large. That ‘ mysteiy,’ as Saint 
Paul calls it,II and as it then was, was revealed to Peter by an espe¬ 
cial miracle. It appears to have beenlT about seven years after 
Christ’s ascension, that the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles of 
Cesarea. A year after this, a great multitude of Gentiles w ere con¬ 
verted at Antioch in Syria. The expressions employed by the histo¬ 
rian are these:—‘ A great number believed, and turned to the Lord;’ 
‘ much people was added unto the Lord;’ ‘ the apostles Barnabas 
and Paul taught much people.’** Upon Herod’s death, which hap¬ 
pened in the next year,tt it is observed, that ‘the word of God grew 
and multiplied.’It Three years from this time, upon the preaching 
of Paul at Iconium, the metropolis of Lycaonia, ‘ a great multitude 
both of Jews and Greeks believed :’$$ and afterward, in the course 
of this very progress, he is represented as ‘ making many disciples ’ 
at Derbe, a principal city in the same district. Three yearsllH after 
this, which brings us to sixteen after the ascension, the apostles 


* Acts viii. 1. T Ver. 4. J Benson, book i. p. 207 

8 Bryant on the Truth of the Christian Religion, p. 112. 

I) Eph- iii. 3—6. ^ Benson, book ii. p. 236. 

** Acts xi. 21. 24. 26. ft Benson, book ii. p 289. 

Il Acts xii. 24. §§ Acts xiv. 1. U|( Benson, book iii. p. 50. 



Evidences of Christianity. 203 

wrote a public letter from Jerusalem to the Gentile converts in 
Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, with which letter Paul travelled through 
these countries, and found the churches ‘ established in the faith, 
and increasing in number daily.’* From Asia, the apostle proceeded 
into Greece, where soon after his arrival in Macedonia, we find him 
at Thessalonica; in which city, ‘some of the Jews believed, and of 
the devout Greeks a great multitude.’t We meet also here with an 
accidental hint of the general progress of the Christian mission, in 
the exclamation of the tumultuous Jew's of Thessalonica, ‘that they, 
who had turned the world upside down, were come thither also.’f 
At Berea, the next city at which Paul arrives, the historian, who 
was present, informs us that ‘ many of the Jews believed.’^ The 
next year and a half of Saint Paul’s ministry was spent at Corinth. 
Of his success in that city, we receive the following intimations: 
‘ that many of the Corinthians believed and were baptized;’ and 
‘ that It was revealed to the apostle by Christ, that he had much peo¬ 
ple in that city.’H Within less than a year after his departure from 
Corinth, and twenty-fivelT years after the ascension. Saint Paul fixed 
his station at Ephesus, for the space of two years* § ** and something 
more. The effect of his ministry in that city and neighborhood drew 
from the historian a reflection, how ‘ mightily grew the word of God 
and prevailed.’tt And at the conclusion of this period, we find De¬ 
metrius at the head of a party, who were alarmed by the progress of 
the religion, complaining, that ‘not only at Ephesus, but also through¬ 
out all Asia (i. e. the province of Lydia, and the country adjoining 
to Ephesus), this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much peo- 
ple.’tt Beside these accounts, there occurs, incidentally, mention 
of converts at Rome, Alexandria, Athens, Cyprus, Cyrene, Macedo¬ 
nia, Philippi. 

This is the third period in the propagation of Christianity, setting 
off in the seventh year after the ascension, and ending at the 
twenty-eighth. Now, lay these three periods together, and observe 
how the progress of the religion by these accounts is represented. 
The institution, which properly began only after its author’s re¬ 
moval from the world, before Ine end of thirty years had spread 
itself through Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, almost all the numerous 
districts of the Lesser Asia, through Greece, and the islands of the 
/Egean Sea, the sea-coast of Africa, and had extended itself to 
Rorne, and into Italy. At Antioch in Syria, at Joppa, Ephesus, 
Corinth, Thessalonica, Berea, Iconium, Derbe, Antioch in Pisidia, at 
Lydda, Saron, the number of converts is intimated by the expres¬ 
sions, ‘ a great number,’ ‘ great multitude,’ ‘ much people.’ Con¬ 
verts are mentioned, without any designation of their number,$5 at 


* Acts xvi. 5. t Acts xvii. 4. J Acts xvii. 6. 

§ Acts xvii. 12. II Acts xviii. 8—10. IT Benson, book iii. p. 160. 

** Acts xix. 10. ft Acts xix. 20. JJ Acts xix. 26. 

§§ Considering the extreme conciseness of many parts of the history, 
the silence about the numbers of converts is no proof of their paucity; 
for at Fhilippi, no mention whatever is made of the number, yet Saint 



204 Paley's Viewof the 

Tyre, Cesarea, Troas, Athens, Philippi, Lystra, Damascus. During 
■all this time, Jerusalem continued not only the centre of the 
mission, but a principal seat of the religion ; for when Saint Paul 
turned thither at the conclusion of the period of which we are now 
considering the accounts, the other apostles pointed out to him, as a 
reason for his compliance with their advice, ‘how many thousands 
(myriads, ten thousands) there were in that city who believed.’* 

Upon this abstract, and the writing from which it is drawn, the 
following observations seem material to be made: 

I. That the account comes from a person, who . was himself con¬ 
cerned in a portion of what he relates, and was contemporary with 
the whole of it; who visited Jerusalem, and frequented the society 
of those who had acted, and were acting, the chief parts in the 
transaction. I lay down this point positively; for had the ancient 
attestations to this valuable record been less satisfactory than they 
:are, the unaffectedness and simplicity with which the author notes 
his presence upon certain occasions, and the entire absence of art 
and design from these notices, would have been sufficient to per¬ 
suade my mind, that whoever he was, he actually lived in the 
times, and occupied the situation, in which he represents himself to 
be. When I say, ‘ whoever he was,’ I do not mean to cast a doubt 
upon the name to which antiquity hath ascribed the Acts of the 
Apostles (for there is no cause that l am acquainted with, for ques¬ 
tioning it), but to observe that, in such a case as this, the time and 
'Situation of the author are of more importance than his name ; and 
that these appear from the work itself and in the most unsuspicious 
form. 

II. That this account is a very incomplete account of the preach¬ 
ing and propagation of Christianity; I mean, that, if what we read 
in the history be true, much more than what the history contains 
must be true also. For, although the narrative from which our in¬ 
formation is derived, has been entitled the Acts of the Apostles, it 
is in fact a history of the twelve apostles only during a short time of 
their continuing together at Jerusalem; and even of this period the 
account is very concise. The work afterward consists of a few im¬ 
portant passages of Peter’s ministry, of the speech and death of Ste¬ 
phen, of the preaching of Philip the deacon; and the sequel of the 
volume, that is, two-thirds of the whole, is taken up with the con¬ 
version, the travels, the discourses, and history of the new apostle, 
Paul; in which history, also, large portions of time are often passed 
tover with very scanty notice. 


Paul addressed an epistle to that church. The churches of Galatia, and 
the affairs of those churches, were considerable enough to be the subject 
of another letter, and of much of Saint Paul’s solicitude : yet no account 
is preserved in the history of his success, or even of his preaching in that 
country, except the slight notice which these words convey:—‘When 
they had gone throughout Phrygia, and the region of Galatia—they 
essayed to go into Bithynia.’ Acts xvi. S. 

* Acts xxi. 20. 



Evidences of Christianity. 205 

III. That the account, so far as it goes, is for this very reason 
more credible. Had it been the author’s design to have displayed 
the early progress of Christianity, he would undoubtedly have col¬ 
lected, or, at least, have set forth, accounts of the preaching of the 
rest of the apostles, who cannot, without extreme improbability, be 
supposed to have remained silent and inactive, or not to have met 
with a share of that success which attended their colleagues. To 
which may be added, as an observation of the same kind, 

IV. That the intimations of the number of converts, and of the 
success of the preaching of the apostles, come out for the most part 
incidentally; are drawn from the historian by the occasion; such 
as the murmuring of the Grecian converts ; the rest from persecu¬ 
tion ; Herod’s death; the sending of Barnabas to Antioch, and Bar¬ 
nabas calling Paul to his assistance ; Paul coming to a place, and 
finding there disciples; the clamor of the Jews; the complaint of 
artificers interested in the support of the popular religion; the rea¬ 
son assigned to induce Paul to give satisfaction to the Christians of 
Jerusalem. Had it not been for these occasions, it is probable that 
no notice whatever would have been taken of the number of con¬ 
verts in several of the passages in which that notice now appears. 
All this tends to remove the suspicion of a design to exaggerate or 
deceive. 

Parallel testimonies with the history, are the letters of Saint 
Paul, and of the other apostles, which have come dowm to us. 
Those of Saint Paul are addressed to the churches of Corinth, 
Philippi, Thessalonica, the church of Galatia, and, if the inscription 
be right, of Ephesus; his ministry at all which places, is recorded 
in the history: to the church of Colosse, or rather to the churches 
of Colosse and Laodicea jointly, which he had not then visited. 
They recognize by reference the churches of Judea, the churches 
of Asia, and ‘all the churches of the Gentiles.”^ In the Epistle to 
the Romans,t the author is led to deliver a remarkable declaration 
concerning the extent of his preaching, its efficacy, and the cause 
to which he ascribes it,—‘ to make the Gentiles obedient by word 
and deed, through mighty signs and wonders, by the pow'er of the 
Spirit of God ; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyri 
cum, I have fully preached the Gospel of Christ’ In the Epistl 
to the Colossians,t we find an oblique but very strong signification 
of the then general state of the Christian mission, at least as it ap¬ 
peared to Saint Paul:—‘If ye continue in the faith, grounded and 
settled, and be not moved aw ay from the hope of the Gospel, which 
ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is 
binder heaven which Gospel, he had reminded them near the be- 
ginning$ of his letter, ‘ was present with them, as it was in all the 
world.' The expressions are hyperbolical; but they are hyperboles 
which could only be used by a writer who entertained a strong 
sense of the subject. The first epistle of Peter accosts the Christians 


t Col. i 23. § Col. i. 6. 

S 


* 1 Thess. ii. 14. 


t Rom. XV. 18,19 



206 Paley^s View of the 

dispersed throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and 
Bilhynia. 

It comes next to be considered, how far these accounts are con¬ 
firmed, or followed up by other evidence. 

Tacitus, in delivering a relation, which has already been laid be¬ 
fore the reader, of the fire which happened at Rome in the tenth 
year of Nero (which coincides with the thirtieth year after Christ’s 
ascension), asserts, that the emperor, in order to suppress the rumors 
of having been himself the author of the mischief, procured the 
Christians to be accused. Of which Christians, thus brought into 
his narrative, the following is so much of the historian’s account as 
belongs to our present purpose : ‘ They had their denomination from 
Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death as a crimi¬ 
nal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, 
though checked for awhile, broke out again, and spread not only 
over Judea, but reached the city also. At first, they only were ap¬ 
prehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterward a 
vast multitude were discovered by them.’ This testimony to the 
early propagation of Christianity is extremely material. It is from 
an historian of great reputation, living near the time; from a stranger 
and an enemy to the religion; and it joins immediately with the 
jtoriod through which the Scripture accounts extend. It establishes 
these points: that the religion began at Jerusalem; that it spread 
throughout Judea; that it had reached Rome, and not only so, but 
that it had there obtained a great number of converts. This was 
about six years after the time that Saint Paul wrote his Epistle to 
the Romans, and something more than two years after he arrived 
there himself. The converts to the religion were then so numerous 
at Rome, that, of those who were betrayed by the information of 
the persons first persecuted, a great multitude (multitude ingens) 
were discovered and seized. 

It seems probable, that the temporary check which Tacitus repre¬ 
sents Christianity to have received (repressa in praesens) referred to 
the persecution at Jerusalem, which followed the death of Stephen 
(Acts viii.); and which, by dispersing the converts, caused the in¬ 
stitution, in some measure, to disappear. Its second eruption at the 
same place, and within a short time, has much in it of the character 
of truth. It was the firmness and perseverance of men who knew 
what they relied upon. 

N ext in order of time, and perhaps superior in importance, is the 
testimony of Pliny the Younger. Pliny was the Roman governor 
ol Pontiis and Bithynia, two considerable districts in the northern 
part of Asia Minor. The situation in which he found his province 
led him to apply to the emperor (Trajan) for his direction as to the 
to hold towards the Christians. The letter in 
which this application is contained, was written not quite eighty 
jtoars after Christ’s ascension. The president in this letter, states 
the measures he had already pursued, and then adds, as his reason 
lor resorting to the emperor’s counsel and authority, the following 


Evidences of Christianity. 207 

words:—‘ Suspending all judicial proceedings, I have recourse to 
you for advice ; for it has appeared to me a matter highly deserving 
consideration, especially on account of the great number of persons 
who are in danger of suffering: for, many of all ages, and of every 
rank, of both sexes likewise, are accused, and will be accused. Nor 
has the contagion of this superstition seized cities only, but the lesser 
towns also, and the open country. Nevertheless it seemed to me, 
that it may be restrained and corrected. It is certain that the tem¬ 
ples, which were almost forsaken, begin to be more frequented; 
and the sacred solemnities, after a long intermission, are revived. 
Victims, likewise, are everywhere (passim) bought up; whereas, 
for some time, there were few to purchase them. Whence it is 
easy to imagine, that numbers of men might be reclaimed, if pardon 
were granted to those that shall repent.’* 

It is obvious to observe, that the passage of Pliny’s letter, here 
quoted, proves, not only that the Christians in Pontus and Bithynia 
were now numerous, but that they had subsisted there for some 
considerable time. ‘ It is certain,’ he says, ‘ that the temples, which 
were almost forsaken (plainly ascribing this desertion of the popular 
worship to the prevalency of Christianity), begin to be more fre¬ 
quented, and the sacred solemnities, after a l<mg intermission, are 
revived.’ There are also two clauses in the former part of the let¬ 
ter, which indicate the same thing; one, in which he declares that 
he had ‘ never been present at any trials of Christians, and there¬ 
fore knew not what was the usual subject of inquiry and punish¬ 
ment, or how far either was wont to be urged.’ The second clause 
is the following: ‘ Others were named by an informer, who, at first, 
confessed themselves Christians, and afterward denied it; the rest 
said, they had been Christians, some three years ago, some longer, 
and some about twenty years.’ It is also apparent, that Pliny 
speaks of the Christians as a description of men well known to the 
person to whom he writes. His first sentence concerning them is, 
‘ I have never been present at the trials of Christians.’ This men¬ 
tion of the name of Christians, without any preparatory explanation, 
shows that it was a term familiar both to the writer of the letter, 
and the person to whom it was addressed. Had it not been so, 
Pliny would naturally have begun his letter by informing the em¬ 
peror, that he had met with a certain set of men in the province, 
called Christians. 

Here then is a very singular evidence of the progress of the 
Christian religion in a short space. It was not fourscore years 
after the crucifixion of Jesus, when Pliny wrote this letter; 
nor seventy years since the apostles of Jesus began to mention his 
name to the Gentile w’orld. Bithynia and Pontus were at a great 
distance from Judea, the centre from which the religion spread ; 
yet in these provinces, Christianity had long subsisted, and Chris¬ 
tians were now in such numbers as to lead the Roman governor to 
report to the emperor, that they were found not only in cities, but 


* C. Plin. Trajano Imp. lib. x. ep. xcvii. 



208 


Paley's View of the 

in villages and in open 'countries; of all ages, of every rank and 
condition; that they abounded so much, as to have produced a 
visible desertion of the temples; that beasts brought to market for 
victims, had few purchasers; that the sacred solemnities were 
much neglected:—circumstances noted by Pliny, for the express 
purpose of showing to the emperor the effect and prevalency of the 
new institution. 

No evidence remains, by which it can be proved that the Chris¬ 
tians were more numerous in Pontus and Bithynia than in other 
parts of the Roman empire; nor has any reason been offered to 
show why they should be so. Christianity did not begin in these 
countries, nor near them. I do not know, therefore, that we ought 
to confine the description in Pliny’s letter to the state of Christianity 
in those provinces, even if no other account of the same subject had 
come down to us; but, certainly, this letter may fairly be applied 
n aid and confirmation of the representations given of the general 
tate of Christianity in the world, by Christian writers of that and 
the next succeeding age. 

Justin Martyr, who wrote about thirty years after Pliny, and one 
hundred and six after the Ascension, has these remarkable words; 
‘There is not a nation, either of Greek or Barbarian, or of any 
other name, even of those who wander in tribes, and live in tents, 
amongst whom prayers and thanksgivings are not offered to the 
Father and Creator of the Universe by the name of the crucified 
Jesus.’* Tertullian, who comes about fifty years after Justin, ap¬ 
peals to the governors of the Roman empire in these terms: ‘We 
were but of yesterday, and we have filled your cities, islands, towns, 
and boroughs, the camp, the senate, and the forum. They (the 
heathen adversaries of Christianity) lament, that every sex, age, and 
condition, and persons of every rank also, are converts to that 
name.’t I do allow, that these expressions are loose, and may be 
called declamatory. But even declamation hath its bounds: this 
public boasting upon a subject which must be known to every read¬ 
er w'as not only useless but unnatural, unless the truth of the case, 
in a considerable degree, correspond with the description ; at least, 
unless it had been both true and notorious, that great multitudes of 
Christians, of all ranks and orders, were to be found in most parts 
of the Roman empire. The same Tertullian, in another passage, 
by way of setting forth the extensive diffusion of Christianity, enu¬ 
merates as belonging to Christ, beside many other countries, the 
‘ Moors and Gaetulians of Africa, the borders of Spain, several na- 
ons of France, and parts of Britain, inaccessible to the Romans, the 
amaritans, Daci, Germans, and Scythians,’t and, w'hich is more 
material than the extent of the institution, the number of Christians 
in the several countries in which it prevailed, is thus expressed by 
him: ‘ Although so great a multitude that in almost every city we 
form the greater part, we pass our time modestly and in silence.’^ 


* Dial, cum Tryph. 
t Ad. Jud. c. 7. 


t Tertull. Apoll. c. 37. 
§ Ad. Scap. c. 111. 



209 


Evidences of Christianity. 

Llemens Alexandrinus, who preceded Tertullian by a few years 
introduces a comparison between the success of Christianity and 
that of the most celebrated philosophical institutions : ‘ The philo¬ 
sopher were confined to Greece, and to their particular retainers; 
but the doctrine of the Master of Christianity did not remain in 
philosophy did in Greece, but it spread throughout the 
whole world, in every nation, and village, and city, both of Greeks 
and Barbarians, converting both whole houses and separate indi¬ 
viduals, having already brought over to the truth not a few of the 
philosophers themselves. If the Greek philosophy be prohibited, it 
immediately vanishes; whereas, from the first preaching of cnir 
doctrine, kings and tyrants, governors and presidents, with their 
whole train, and with the populace on their side, have endeavored 
with their whole might to exterminate it, yet doth it flourish more 
and more.’* Origen, who follows Tertullian at the distance of only 
thirty years, delivers nearly the same account: ‘In every part of 
the world (says he), throughout all Greece, and in all other nations, 
there are innumerable and immense multitudes, who, having left 
the laws of their country, and those whom they esteemed gods, 
have given themselves up to the law of Moses, and the religion of 
Christ: and this not without the bitterest resentment from the idol¬ 
aters, by whom they were frequently put to torture, and sometimeTs 
to death: and it is wonderful to observe, how, in so short a time, 
the religion has increased, amidst punishment and death, and every 
kind of torture.’f In another passage, Origen draws the following 
candid comparison between the state of Christianity in his time, and 
the condition of its more primitive ages: ‘ By the good providence 
of God, the Christian religion has so flourished and increased con¬ 
tinually, that it is now preached freely without molestation, although 
there were a thousand obstacles to the spreading of the doctrine of 
Jesus in the world. But as it was the will of God that the Gentiles 
should have the benefit of it, all the counsels of men against the 
Christians were defeated; and by how much the more emperors 
and governors of provinces, and the people everywhere, strove to 
depress them; so much the more have they increased, and pre¬ 
vailed exceedingly.’! 

It is well known, that within less than eighty years after this, the 
Roman empire became Christian under Constantine: and it is prob¬ 
able that Constantine declared himself on the side of the Christians, 
because they were the powerful party; for Arnobius, who wrote 
immediately before Constantine’s accession, speaks of the whole 
world as filled wuth Christ’s doctrine, of its diffusion throughout all 
countries, of an innumerable body of Christians in distant provinces, 
of the strange revolution of opinion of men of the greatest genius, 
orators, grammarians, rhetoricians, lawyers, physicians, having come 
over to the institution, and that also in the face of threats, execu- 


t Grig, in Cels, lib 


* Clem. Al. Strum, lib. vl. ad fin. 
J Grig. cont. Cels. lib. vii. 


S2 



210 


Paley^s View of the 

tions, and tortures.* And not more than twenty years after Con* 
stantine’s entire possession of the empire, Julius Firmicus Maternus 
calls upon the emperors Constantins and Constans to extirpate the 
relics of the ancient religion ; the reduced and fallen condition of 
which is described by our author in the following words: ‘ Licet 
adhuc in quibusdam regionibus idololatriae morientia palpitent mem¬ 
bra; tamen in eo reo est, ut A Christianis omnibus terris pestiferum 
hoc malum funditiis amputetur:’ and in another place, ‘ Modicum 
tantum superest, ut legibus vestris—extincta idololatrae pereat fu- 
nesta contagio.’t It will not be thought that we quote this writer 
in order to recommend his temper or his judgment, but to show the 
comparative state of Christianity and of Heathenism at this period. 
Fifty years afterward, Jerome represents the decline of Paganism 
in language which conveys the same idea of its approaching extinc¬ 
tion : ‘ Solitudinem patitur et in urbe gentilitas. Dii quondam na- 
tionam, cum bubonibus et noctuis, in solis culminibus remanserunt.’J 
Jerome here indulges a triumph, natural and allowable in a zealous 
friend of the cause, but which could only be suggested to his mind 
by the consent and universality with which he saw the religion 
received. ‘ But now (says he) the passion and resurrection of Christ 
are celebrated in the discourses and writings of all nations. I need 
not mention, Jews, Greeks, and Latins. The Indians, Persians, 
Goths, and Egyptians philosophize, and firmly believe the immor¬ 
tality of the soul, and future recompenses, which, before, the greatest 
philosophers had denied, or doubted of, or perplexed with their dis¬ 
putes. The fierceness of Thracians and Scythians is now softened 
by the gentle sound of the Gospel; and everywhere Christ is all in 
all.’§ Were therefore the motives of Constantine’s conversion ever 
so problematical, the easy establishment of Christianity, and the 
ruin of Heathenism, under him and his immediate successors, is of 
itself a proof of the progress which Christianity had made in the 
preceding period. It may be added also, ‘ that Maxentius, the rival 
of Constantine, had shown himself friendly to the Christians. 
Therefore of those who were contending for worldly power and 
empire, one actually favored and flattered them, and another may 
be suspected to have joined himself to them, partly from considera¬ 
tion of interest: so considerable were they become, under external 
disadvantages of all sorts.’H This at least is certain, that throughout 
the whole transaction hitherto, the great seemed to follow, not to 
lead, the public opinion. 

It may help to convey to us some notion of the extent and progress 
of Christianity, or rather of the character and quality of many early 
Christians, of their learning and their labors, to notice the number 
of Christian writers who flourished in these ages. Saint Jerome’s 


P 


* Arnob. in Gentes, 1. i. p. 27. 9. 24. 42. 44. edit. Lug Bat. 1650. 
t De Error. Profan. Relig. c. xxi. p. 172, quoted by Lardner, vol. viii, 


f Jer. ad Lect. ep. 5. 7. 
Lardner, vo). vii. p. 380. 


§ Jer. ep. 8. ad Heliod. 




Evidences of Christianity. 211 

catalogue contains sixty-six writers within the first three centuries, 
and the first six years of the fourth; and fifty-four between that 
tiine and his own, 172 . a. d. 392. Jerome introduces his catalogue 
with the following just remonstranceLet those who say tho 
church has had no philosophers, nor eloquent and learned men 
observe who and what they were who founded, established, and 
adorned it: let them cease to accuse our faith of rusticity, and con¬ 
fess their mistake.’* Of these writers, several, as Justm, Irenaeus, 
Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Bardesanes, Hippolitus, 
Eusebius, were voluminous writers. Christian writers abounded 
particularly about the year 178. Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, 
founded a library in that city, a. d. 212. Pamphilus, the friend of 
Origen, founded a library at Cesarea, a. d. 294. Public defences 
were also set forth, by various advocates of the religion, in the 
course of its first three centuries. Within one hundred years after 
Christ’s ascension, Quadratus and Aristides, whose works, except 
some few fragments of the first, are lost; and, about twenty years 
afterward, Justin Martyr, whose works remain, presented apologies 
for the Christian religion to the Roman emperors; Quadratus and 
Aristides to Adrian, Justin to Antoninus Pius, and a second to Mar¬ 
cus Antoninus. Melito, bishop of Sardis, and Apollinaris, bishop of 
Hierapolis, and Miltiades, men of great reputation, did the same to 
Marcus Antoninus, twenty years afterward :t and ten years after 
this, Apollonius, who suffered martyrdom under the emperor Corn- 
modus, composed an apology for his faith, which he read in the 
senate, and which was afterward published.t Fourteen years after 
the apology of Apollonius, Tertullian addressed the work which 
now remains under that name to the governors of provinces in the 
Roman empire; and, about the same time, Minucius Felix composed 
a defence of the Christian religion, which is still extant; and shortly 
after the conclusion of this century, copious defences of Christianity 
were published by Arnobius and Lactantius. 


SECT. II. 

Rejlections upon the preceding Account. 

In viewing the progress of Christianity, our first attention is due 
to the number of converts at Jerusalem, immediately after its 
Founder’s death; because this success was a success at the time, 
and upon the spot, when and where the chief part of the history had 
been transacted. 

We are, in the next place, called upon to attend to the early 
establishment of numerous Christian societies in Judea and Galilee; 
which countries had been the scene of Christ’s miracles and minis- 


* Jer. Prof in Lib. de Scr. Eccl. 

t Eiiseb. Hist. lib. iv. c. 26. See also Lardner, vol. ii. p. 666. 
j Lardner, vol. ii. p. 687. 



212 Paley's View of the 

try, and where the memory of what had passed, and the know ledge 
of what was alleged, must have yet been fresh and certain. 

We are, thirdly, invited to recollect the success of the apostles 
and of their companions, at the several places to w’hich they came, 
both within and without Judea; because it was the credit given to 
original witnesses, appealing for the truth of their accounts to what 
themselves had seen and heard. The effect also of their preaching 
strongly confirms the truth of what our history positively and cir¬ 
cumstantially relates, that they were able to exhibit to their hearers 
supernatural attestations of their mission. 

We are, lastly, to consider the subsequent growth and spread of 
the religion, of which we receive successive intimations, and satis¬ 
factory, though general and occasional, accounts, until its full and 
final establishment. 

In all these several stages, the history is without a parallel: for 
It must be observed, that we have not now been tracing the pro¬ 
gress, and describing the prevalency, of an opinion, founded upon 
philosophical or critical arguments, upon mere deduction of reason, 
or the construction of ancient writings (of which kind are the seve¬ 
ral theories which have, at different times, gained possession of the 
public mind in various departments of science and literature; and 
of one or other of w'hich kind are the tenets also which divide the 
various sects of Christianity); but that we speak of a system, the 
very basis and postulatum of which was a supernatural character 
ascribed to a particular person; of a doctrine, the truth whereoi 
depends entirely upon the truth of a matter of fact then recent 
‘To establish a new religion, even amongst a few people, or in one 
single nation, is a thing in itself exceedingly difficult To reform 
some corruptions which may have spread in a religion, or to make 
new regulations in it is not perhaps so hard, wffien the main and 
principal part of that religion is preserved entire and unshaken ; and 
yet this very often cannot be accomplished without an extraordinary 
concurrence of circumstances, and may be attempted a thousand 
times without success. But to introduce a new faith, a new way 
of thinking and acting, and to persuade many nations to quit the 
religion in which their ancestors have lived and died, which had 
been delivered down to them from time immemorial, to make them 
forsake and despise the deities which they had been accustomed to 
reverence and worship; this is a work of still greater difficulty.'*' 
The resistance of education, worldly policy, and superstition, is 
almost invincible.’ 

If men, in these days, be Christians in consequence of their edu¬ 
cation, in submission to authority, or in compliance with fashion, let 
us recollect that the very contrary of this, at the beginning, was the 
case. The first race of Christians, as well as millions who suc¬ 
ceeded them, became such in formal opposition to all these motives, 
to the whole power and strength of this influence. Every argu 


* Jortin's Ills, on the Christ. Rel. p. 107. ed. iv. 



Evidences of Christianity. 213 

ment, therefore, and every instance, which sets forth the prejudice 
of education, and the almost irresistible effects of that prejudice 
(and no persons are more fond of expatiating upon this subject than 
deistical writers), in fact confirms the evidence of Christianity. 

But, in order to judge of the argument which is drawn from the 
early propagation of Christianity, I know no fairer way of proceed¬ 
ing than to compare what we have seen on the subject, with the 
success of Christian missions in modem ages. In the East India mis¬ 
sion, supported by the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, 
we hear sometimes of thirty, sometimes of forty, being baptized in 
the course of a year, and these principally children. Of converts 
properly so called, that is, of adults voluntarily embracing Chris¬ 
tianity, the number is extremely small. ‘ Notwithstanding the labor 
of missionaries for upwards of two hundred years, and the estab¬ 
lishments of different Christian nations who support them, there are 
not twelve thousand Indian Christians, and those almost entirely 
outcasts.’* 

I lament, as much as any man, the little progress which Chris¬ 
tianity has made in these countries, and the inconsiderable effect tha,t 
has followed the labors of its missionaries: but I see in it a strong 
proof of the Diyine origin of the religion. What had the apgstles 
to assist them in propagating Christianity which the missionaries 
have not ? If piety and zeal had been sufficient, I doubt not hut that 
our missionaries possess these qualities in a high degree: for, nolhmg 
except piety and zeal could engage them in the undertaking. IF 
sanctity of life and manners was the allurement, the conduct of 
these men is unblamable. If the advantage of education and learn¬ 
ing be looked to, there is not one of the modern missionaries, who is 
not, in this respect, superior to all the apostles: and that not only 
absolutely, but, what is of more importance, relatively, in comparison, 
that is, with those amongst whom they exercise their office. If the 
intrinsic excellency of the religion, the perfection of its morality, 
the purity of its precepts, the eloquence or tenderness or subhmity 
of various parts of its writings, were the recommendations by which 
it made its way, these remain the same. If the character and cir¬ 
cumstances, under which the preachers were introduced to the 
countries in which they taught, be accounted of importance, this 
advantage is all on the side of the modem missionaries. They come 
from a countty and a people to which the Indian world look up with 
sentiments of deference. The apostles came forth amongst the 
Gentiles under no other name than that of Jews, which was pre¬ 
cisely the character they despised and derided. If it be disgraceful 
in India to become a Christian, it could not be much less so to be 
enrolled amongst those, ‘quos per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos 
appellabat.’ If the religion which they had to encounter be con¬ 
sidered, the difference, I apprehend, will not be great. The theology 


* Sketches relating to the history, learning, and manners, of the Hin¬ 
doos, p. 48; quoted by Dr. Robertson, Hist. Dis. concerning ancient India, 
p. 236. 



214 Paley's View of the 

of both was nearly the same: ‘what is supposed to be performed 
by the power of Jupiter, of Neptune, of vEolus, of Mars, of Venus, 
according to the mythology of the West, is ascribed, in the East, to 
the agency of Agrio the god of fire, Varoon the god of oceans, 
Vayoo the god of wind, Cama the god of love.’* * * § The sacred rites 
of the Western Polytheism were gay, festive, and licentious ; the 
rites of the public religion in the East partake of the same charac¬ 
ter, with a more avowed indecency. ‘ In every function performed 
in the pagodas, as well as in every public procession, it is the office 
of these women (i. e. of women prepared by the Brahmins for the 
purpose), to dance before the idol, and to sing hymns in his praise; 
and it is difficult to say whether they trespass most against decency 
by the gestures they exhibit, or by the verses which they recite. The 
walls of the pagodas were covered with paintings in a style no less 
indelicate.’t 

On both sides of the comparison, the popular religion had a strong 
establishment. In ancient Greece and Rome, it was strictly incor¬ 
porated with the state. The magistrate was the priest. The highest 
officers of government bore the most distinguished part in the cele¬ 
bration of the public rites. In India, a powerful and numerous cast 
possess exclusively the administration of the established worship; 
and are, of consequence, devoted to the service, and attached to its 
interest. In both, the prevailing mythology was destitute of any 
proper evidence: or rather, in both, the origin of the tradition is run 
up into ages long anterior to the existence of credible history, or of 
written language. The Indian chronology computes eras by millions 
of years, and the life of man by thousands and in these, or prior 
to these, is placed the history of their divinities. In both, the es¬ 
tablished superstition held the same place in the public opinion; 
that is to say, in both it was credited by the bulk of the people,$ 

* Baghvat Geeta, p 94, quoted by Dr. Robertson, Ind. Dis. p. 306. 

t Others of the deities of the East are of an austere and gloomy char¬ 
acter, to be propitiated by victims, sometimes by human sacrifices, and 
by voluntary torments of the most excruciating kind.—Voyage de Gentil, 
vol. i. p. 244—2ti0. Preface to Code of Gentoo Laws, p. 57, quoted by 
Dr Robertson, p. 320. 

J The Suflec Jogue, or age of purity, is said to have lasted three mil¬ 
lion two hundred thousand years; and they hold that the life of man 
was extended in that age to one hundred thousand years; but there is a 
difference amongst the Indian writers, of six millions of years in the com¬ 
putation of this era.’ Ib 

§ ‘ How absurd soever the articles of faith may be, which superstition 
has adopted, or how unhallowed the rites which it prescribes, the former 
are received, in every age and country, with unhesitating assent, by the 
great body of the people, and the latter observed with scrupulous exact¬ 
ness. In our reasonings concerning opinions and practices which differ 
widely from our own, we are extremely apt to err. Having been in¬ 
structed ourselves in the principles of a religion, worthy in every respect 
of that Divine wisdom by which they were dictated, we frequently ex¬ 
press wonder at the credulity of nations, in embracing systems of belief 
which appear to us so directly repugnant to right reason; and sometimes 
suspect that tenets so wild and extravagant do not really gain credit 



Evidences of Christianity. 215 

but by the learned and philosophical part of the community, either 
derided, or regarded by them as only fit to be upholden for the 
sake of its political uses.* 

Or if it should be allowed, that the ancient heathens believed 
in their religion less generally than the present Indians do, I am far 
from thinking that this circumstance would afford any facility to the 
work of the apostles, above that of the modern missionaries. To me 
it appears, and I think it material to be remarked, that a disbelief of 
the established religion of their country has no tendency to dispose 
men for the reception of another; but that, on the contrary, it gene¬ 
rates a settled contempt of all religious pretensions whatever. 
General infidelity is the hardest sod which the propagators of a 
new religion can have to work upon. Could a Methodist or Moravian 
promise himself a better chance of success with a French esprit fort, 
who had been accustomed to laugh at the popery of his country, than 
with a believing Mahometan or Hindoo ? Or are our modern unbe¬ 
lievers in Christianity, for that reason, in danger of becoming Ma¬ 
hometans or Hindoos ? It does not appear that the Jews, who had 
a body of historical evidence to offer for their religion, and who at 
that time undoubtedly entertained and held forth the expectation of 
a future state, derived any great advantage, as to the extension of 
their system, from the discredit into which the popular religion had 
fallen with many of their heathen neighbors. 

We have particularly directed our observations to the state and 
progress of Christianity amongst the inhabitants of India: but the 
history of the Christian mission in other countries, where the effi¬ 
cacy of the mission is left solely to the conviction wrought by the 
preaching of strangers, presents the same idea, as the Indian mission 
does, of the feebleness and inadequacy of human means. About 
twenty-five years ago, was published in England a translation from 
the Dutch, of a History of Greenland, and a relation of the mission 
for above thirty years carried on in that country by the Unitas Fra- 
trum, or Moravians. Every part of that relation confirms the 
opinion we have stated. Nothing could surpass, or hardly equal, 
the zeal and patience of the missionaries. Yet their historian, in the 
conclusion of his narrative, could find place for no reflections more 
encouraging than the following:—‘ A person that had known the 
heathen, that had seen the little benefit from the great pains hitherto 


with them. But experience may satisfy us, that neither our wonder nor 
suspicions are well founded. No article of the public religion was called 
in question by those people of ancient Europe with whose history we 
are best acquainted ; and no practice, which it enjoined, appeared im¬ 
proper to them. On the other hand, every opinion that tended to dimin¬ 
ish the reverence of men for the gods of their country, or to alienate 
them from their worship, excited, among the Greeks and Romans, that 
indignant zeal which is natural to every people attached to their religion 
by a lirm persuasion of its truth.’ Ind. Dis. p. 321. 

♦That the learned Brahmins of the East are rational Theists, and se¬ 
cretly reject the established theory, and contemn the rites that were 
founded upon them, or rather consider them as contrivances to be sup- 
oorted for their political uses, see Dr. Robertson’s Ind. Dis. p. 324—334. 



216 Paley's View of the 

taken with them, and considered that one after another had aban 
doned all hopes of the conversion of those infidels (and some thought 
they would never be converted, till they saw miracles wrought as in 
the apostles’ days, and this the Greenlanders expected and demanded 
of their instructors); one that considered this, I say, would not so 
much wonder at the past unfruitfulness of these young beginners, as 
at their stedfast perseverance in the midst of nothing but distress, diffi¬ 
culties, and impediments, internally, and externally; and that they 
never desponded of the conversion of those poor creatures amidst 
all seeming impossibilities.’* 

From the widely disproportionate effects which attend the preach 
ing of modern missionaries of Christianity, compared with what fol¬ 
lowed the ministry of Christ and his apostles under circumstances 
either alike, or not so unlike, as to account for the difference, a con¬ 
fusion is fairly drawn, in support of W'hat our histories deliver con- 
erning them, viz. that they possessed means of conviction, which 
e have not; that they had proofs to appeal to, which we want. 


SECT. III. 

Of the Success of Mahometanism. 

The only event in the history of the human species, which admits 
of comparison with the propagation of Christianity, is the success of 
Mahometanism. The Mahometan institution was rapid in its pro¬ 
gress, was recent in its history, and was founded upon a supernatu¬ 
ral or prophetic character assumed by its author. In these articles, 
the resemblance with Christianity is confessed. But there are points 
of difference, which separate, we apprehend, the two cases entirely. 

I. Mahomet did not found his pretensions upon miracles, properly 
so called; that is, upon proofs of supernatural agency, capable of 
being known and attested by others. Christians are warranted in 
this assertion by the evidence of the Koran, in which Mahomet not 
only does not affect the power of working miracles, but expressly 
disclaims it. The following passages of that book furnish direct 
proofs of the truth of what we allege:—‘The infidels say. Unless a 
sign be sent down unto him from his lord, we will not believe; thou 
art a preacher only.’t Again; ‘ Nothing hindered us from sending 
thee with miracles, except that the former nations have charged 
them with imposture.’t And lastly; ‘ They say, unless a sign be 
sent down unto him from his lord, we will not believe: Answer; 
Signs are in the power of God alone, and I am no more than a pub¬ 
lic preacher. Is it not sufficient for them, that we have sent down 
unto them the book of the Koran to be read unto them ? ’$ Besides 
these acknowledgments, I have observed thirteen distinct places, in 


♦ History of Greenland, vol. ii. p. 376. 
t Sale’s Koran, c. xiii. p. 201. ed. quarto. 

X Ch. xvii. p. 232. § Ch. xxix. p. 328. ed. quarto. 




Evidences of Christianity. 217 

which Mahomet pute the objection (unless a sign, &c.) into the mouth 
of the unbeliever, in not one of w'hich does he allege a miracle in 
rsply. His answer is, * that God giveth the power of working mira- 
cles, when and to whom he pleaseth ‘ that if he should work 
miracles, they would not believe ;’t ‘ that they had before rejected 
Moses, and the Prophets, who wrought miracles;’! ‘that the Koran 
Itself was a miracle.’$ 

The only place in the Koran in which it can be pretended that a 
sensible miracle is referred to (for I do not allow the secret visita¬ 
tions of Gabriel, the night journey of Mahomet to heaven, or the 
presence in battle of invisible hosts of angels, to deserve the name 
m sewsiWe miracles), is the beginning of the fifty-fourth chapter. 
The words are these:—‘The hour of judgment approacheth, tAe 

moon hath been split in sunder ,• but if the unbelievers see a sign, 
they turn aside, saying. This is a powerful charm.’ The Mahometan 
expositors disagree in their interpretation of this passage; some 
it to be a mention of the splitting of the moon, as one of 
the future signs of the approach of the day of judgment; others 
referring it to a miraculous appearance which had then taken place.H 
It seems to me not improbable, that Mahomet might have taken 
advantage of some extraordinary halo, or other unusual appearance 
of the moon, which had happened about this time; and which sup¬ 
plied a foundation both for this passage, and for the story which in 
after times had been raised out of it. 

After this more than silence, after these authentic confessions of 
the Koran, we are not to be moved with miraculous stories related 
of Mahomet by Abulfeda, w^ho wrote his life, about six hundred 
years after his death; or which are found in the legend of Al-Jan- 
nabi, who came two hundred years later.IT On the contrary, from 
comparing what Mahomet himself w'rote and said, with what was 
afterward reported of him by his followers, the plain and fair con¬ 
clusion is, that when the religion was established by conquest, then, 
and not till then, came out the stories of his miracles. 

Now this difference alone constitutes, in my opinion, a bar to all 
reasoning from one case to the other. The success of a religion 
founded upon a miraculous history, shows the credit which was 
given to the history; and this credit, under the circumstances in 
which it was given, i. e. by persons capable of knowing the truth, 
and interested to inquire after it, is evidence of the reality of the 
history, and, by consequence, of the truth of the religion. Where a 
miraculous history is not alleged, no part of this argument can be 
applied. We admit, that multitudes acknowledge the pretensions 

* Sale’s Koran, ch. v. x. xiii. twice. f Ch. vi. 

t Ch. iii. xxi. xxviii. § Ch. xvi. || Vide Sale, in loc. 

IT It does not, I think, appear that these historians had any written 
accounts to appeal to, more ancient than the Sonnah, which was a col¬ 
lection of traditions made by order of the caliphs two hundred years after 
Mahomet’s death. Mahomet died A D. 632; Al-Bochari, one of the six 
doctors who compiled the Sonnah, was born A. D. 809; died in 869. Pri- 
deaux’s Life of Mahomet, p. 192. ed. 7th. 


T 



218 Paley^s Vieio of the 

of Mahomet; but, these pretensions being destitute of miraculous 
evidence, we know that the grounds upon which they were ac¬ 
knowledged, could not be secure grounds of persuasion to his fol¬ 
lowers, nor their example any authority to us. Admit the whole of 
Mahomet’s authentic history, so far as it was of a nature capable of 
being known or witnessed by others, to be true (which is certainly 
to admit all that the reception of the religion can be brought to 
prove), and Mahomet might still be an impostor, or enthusiast, or a 
union of both. Admit to be true almost any part of Christ’s history, 
of that, I mean, which was public, and within the cognizance of his 
followers, and he must have come from God. Where matter of fact 
is not in question, where miracles are not alleged, I do not see that 
the progress of a religion is a better argument of its trutn, than the 
prevalency of any system of opinions in natural religion, morality, 
or physics, is a proof of the truth of those opinions. Ami we know 
that this sort of argument is inadmissible in any branch of philoso¬ 
phy whatever. 

But it will be said. If one religion could make its way without 
miracles, why might not another ? To which I reply, first, that this 
is not the question; the proper question is not, whether a religious 
institution could be set up without miracles, but whether a religion 
or a change of religion, founding itself in miracles, could succeed 
without any reality to rest upon ? I apprehend these two cases to 
be very different; and I apprehend M,ahomel’s not taking this 
course, to be one proof, amongst others, that the thing is difficult, if 
not impossible, to be accomplished: certainly it was not from an 
unconsciousness of the value and importance of miraculous evi¬ 
dence : for it is very observable, that in the same volume, and some¬ 
times in the same chapters, in which Mahomet so repeatedly dis¬ 
claims the power of working miracles himself, he is incessantly 
referring to the miracles of ■'receding prophets. One would iraag'ine, 
to hear some men talk, or to read some books, that the setting up of 
a religion by dint of miraculous pretences was a thing of every day’s 
experience; whereas, I believe, that, except the Jewish and Chris¬ 
tian religion, there is no tolerably well-authenticated account of any 
such thing having been accomplished. 

II. The establishment of Mahomet’s religion was effected by 
causes which in no degree appertained to the origin of Christianity. 

During the first twelve years of his mission, Mahomet had recourse 
only to persuasion. This is allowed. And there is sufficient reason 
from the effect to believe, that, if he had confined himself to this 
mode of propagating his religion, we of the present day should never 
have heard either of him or it. ‘ Three years were silently employed 
in the conversion o^fourteen proselytes. For ten years, the religion 
advanced with a slow and painful progress, within the walls of 
Mecca. The number of proselytes in the seventh year of his mis¬ 
sion may be estimated by the absence of eighty-three men and eigh¬ 
teen women, who retired to Ethiopia.’* Yet this progress, such a? 


* Gibbon’s Hist. vol. ix. p. 244, &c.; ed. Dub. 



Evidences of Christianity. 219 

it was, appears to have been aided by some very important advan* 
tages which Mahomet found in his situation, in his mode of conduct¬ 
ing his design, and in his doctrine. 

1. Mahomet was the grandson of the most powerful and honor 
able family in Mecca: and although the early death of his father 
had not left him a patrimony suitable to his birth, he had, long 
before the commencement of his mission, repaired this deficiency by 
an opulent marriage. A person considerable by his wealth, of nigh 
descent, and nearly allied to the chiefs of his country, taking upon 
himself the character of a religious teacher, would not fail of at¬ 
tracting attention and followers. 

2. Mahomet conducted his design, in the outset especially, with 
great art and prudence. He conducted it as a politician would con¬ 
duct a plot. His first application was to his own family. This gained 
him his wife’s uncle, a considerable person in Mecca, together with 
his cousin Ali, afterward the celebrated Caliph, then a youth of 
great expectation, and even already distinguished by his attachment, 
impetuosity, and courage.* He next expressed himself to Abu Beer, 
a man amongst the first of the Koreish in wealth and influence. The 
interest and example of Abu Beer, drew in five other principal per¬ 
sons in Mecca; whose solicitations prevailed upon five more of the 
same rank. This was the work of three years; during which time, 
every thing was transacted in secret. Upon the strength of these 
allies, and under the powerful protection of his family, who, how¬ 
ever some of them might disapprove his enterprise, or deride his 
pretensions, would not suffer the orphan of their house, the relic of 
their favorite brother, to be insulted; Mahomet now commenced 
his public preaching. And the advance which he made during the 
nine or ten remaining years of his peaceable ministry, was by no 
means greater than what, with these advantages, and with the addi¬ 
tional and singular circumstance of there being no established reli¬ 
gion at Mecca at that time to contend with, might reasonably have 
been expected. How soon his primitive adherents were let into 
the secret of his views of empire, or in what stage of his under¬ 
taking these views first opened themselves to his own mind, it is not 
now so easy to determine. The event however was, that these his 
first proselytes all ultimately attained to riches and honors, to the 
command of armies, and the government of kingdoms.t 

3. The Arabs deduced their descent from Abraham through the 
line of Ishmael. The inhabitants of Mecca, in common probably 
with the other Arabian tribes, acknowledged, as, I think, may 
clearly be collected from the Koran, one supreme Deity, but had 
associated with him many objects of idolatrous worship. The great 

* Of which Mr. Gibbon has preserved the following specimen:—‘ When 
Mahomet called out in an assembly of his family, Who among you will 
be my companion and my vizir? Ali, then only in the fourteenth year 
of his age, suddenly replied, O prophet! I am the man;—whosoever rises 
against thee, I will dash out his teeth, tear out his eyes, break his legs, 
rip up his belly. O prophet! I will be thy vizir over them.’ Vol. ix. p. 245. 

f Gibbon, vol. ix. p. 244. 



220 


Paley's View of the 

doctrine with which Mahomet set out, was the strict and exclusive 
unity of God. Abraham, he told them, their illustrious ancestor; 
Ishmael, the father of their nation; Moses, the lawgiver of the 
Jews; and Jesus, the author of Christianity; had all asserted the 
same thing ; that their followers had universally corrupted the truth, 
and that he was now commissioned to restore it to the world. Was 
it to be wondered at, that a doctrine so specious, and authorized by 
names, some or other of which were holden in the highest venera¬ 
tion by every description of his hearers, should, in the hands of a 
popular missionary, prevail to the extent to which Mahomet suc¬ 
ceeded by his pacific ministry ? 

4. Of the institution which Mahomet joined with this fundamen¬ 
tal doctrine, and of the Koran in which that institution is delivered, 
we discover, I think, two purposes that pervade the whole, viz. to 
make converts, and to make his converts soldiers. The following 
particulars, amongst others, may be considered as pretty evident 
indications of these designs : 

1. When Mahomet began to preach, his address to the Jews, to 
the Christians, and to the Pagan Arabs, was, that the religion 
which he taught, was no other than what had been originally their 
own.—‘ We believe in God, and that which hath been sent down 
unto us, and that which hath been sent down unto Abraham, and 
Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the Tribes, and that which was 
delivered unto Moses and Jesus, and that which was delivered unto 
the prophets from their Lord: we make no distinction between any 
of them.’* ‘He hath ordained you the religion which he com¬ 
manded Noah, and which we have revealed unto thee, O Moham¬ 
med, and which we commanded Abraham, Moses, and Jesiis, say¬ 
ing, Observe this religion, and be not divided therein.’t ‘ He hath 
chosen you, and hath not imposed on you any difficulty in the 
religion which he hath given you, the religion of your father Abra¬ 
ham.’t 

2. The author of the Koran never ceases from describing the fu¬ 
ture anguish of unbelievers, their despair, regret, penitence, and 
torment. It is the point which he labors above all others. And 
these descriptions are conceived in terms which will appear in no 
small degree impressive, even to the modem reader of an English 
translation. Doubtless they would operate with much greater force 
upon the minds of those to whom they were immediately directed. 
The terror which they seem well calculated to inspire, would be to 
many tempers a powerful application. 

3. On the other hand; his voluptuous paradise ; his robes of silk, 
his palaces of marble, his rivers and shades, his groves and couches, 
his wines, his dainties; and above all, his seventy-two virgins as¬ 
signed to each of the faithful, of resplendent beauty and eternal 
youth; intoxicated the imaginations, and seized the passions of his 
Eastern followers. 

4. But Mahomet’s highest heaven was reserved for those who 


♦ Sale’s Koran, c. ii. p. 17 t Ib- c. xlii. p. 393. I Ib. c. xxii. p. 281. 



Evidences of Christianity. 221 

fought his battles, or expended their fortunes in his cause.—‘ Those 
believers who still sit at home, not having any hurt, and those who 
employ their fortunes and their persons for the religion of God, shall 
not be held equal. God hath preferred those who employ their 
fortunes and their persons in that cause, to a degree above those 
who sit at home. God had indeed promised every one Paradise • 
but G(^ had preferred those who fight for the faith before those 
who sit still, by adding unto them a great reward; by degree of 
honor conferred upon them from him, and by granting them for¬ 
giveness and mercy.’* Again; ‘ Do ye reckon the giving drink to 
the pilgrims, and the visiting of the holy temple, to be actions as 
meritorious as those performed by him who believeth in God and 
the last day, ondfightethfor the religion of God ? They shall not be 
held equal with God.—^They who have believed and fled their 
country, and employed their substance and their persons in the de¬ 
fence of God’s true religion, shall be in the highest degree of honor 
with God; and these are they who shall be happy. The Lord 
sendeth them good tidings of mercy from him, and good will, and 
of gardens wherein they shall enjoy lasting pleasures. They shall 
continue therein for ever; for with God is a great reward.’t And 
once more; ‘ Verily God hath purchased of the true believers their 
souls and their substance, promising them the enjoyment of Para¬ 
dise, on condition that they fight for the cause of God; whether they 
slay or be slain, the promise for the same is assuredly due by the 
Law and the Gospel and the Koran.’! § 

5. His doctrine of predestination was applicable, and was applied 
by him, to the same purpose of fortifying and of exalting the courage 
of his adherents.—‘If any thing of the matter had happened unto 
us, w-e had not been slain here. Answer: If ye had been in your 
houses, verily they would have gone forth to fight, whose slaughter 
was decreed to the places where they died.’H 

6. In warm regions, the appetite of the sexes is ardent, the pas¬ 
sion for inebriating liquors moderate. In compliance with this 
distinction, although Mahomet laid a restraint upon the drinking of 
W ine, in the use of women he allowed an almost unbounded indul¬ 
gence. Four wives, with the liberty of changing them at pleasure,ir 
together with the persons of all his captives,* § ** was an irresistible 
bribe to an Arabian warrior. ‘God is minded, (says he, speaking 
of this very subject) to make his religion light unto you; for man 
was created weak.’ How different this from the unaccommodating 
purity of the Gospel! How would Mahomet have succeeded with 


* Sale’s Koran, c. iv. p. 73. f Tb- c. ix. p. 151. J Ib. c. ix. p. 164. 

§ ‘ The sword (saith Mahomet) is the key of heaven and of hell; a drop 
of blood shed in the cause of God, a night spent in arms, is of more avail 
than two months’ fasting or prayer. Whosoever falls in battle, his 
sins are forgiven at the day of judgment; his wounds shall be resplendent 
as vermilion, and odoriferous as musk ; and the loss of his limbs shall be 
supplied by the wings of angels and cherubims.’ Gibbon, vol. ix. 256. 

K Sale's Koran, c. iii. p. 54. H Ib. c. iv. p. 63. ** Gibbon, vol. ix. p. 225. 

T2 



222 


Paley's View of the 

the Christian lesson in his mouth,—‘Whosoever looketh upon a 
woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already 
in his heart V It must be added, that Mahomet did not enter upon 
the prohibition of wine, till the fourth year of the Hegira, or seven¬ 
teenth of his mission,* * * § when his military successes had completely 
established his authority. The same observation holds of the fast 
of the Ramadan,t and of the most laborious part of his institution, 
the pilgrimage to Mecca, f 

What has hitherto been collected from the records of the Mussul¬ 
man history, relates to the twelve or thirteen years of Mahomet’s 
peaceable preaching; which part alone of his life and enterprise 
admits of the smallest comparison with the origin of Christianity. 
A new scene is now unfolded. The city of Medina, distant about 
ten days’ journey from Mecca, was at that time distracted by the 
hereditary contentions of two hostile tribes. These feuds w'ere ex¬ 
asperated by the mutual persecutions of the Jews and Christians, 
and of the different Christian sects by which the city was inhabited.^ 
The religion of Mahomet presented, in some measure, a point of 
union or compromise to these divided opinions. It embraced the 
principles which w'ere common to them all. Each party saw in it 
an honorable acknowledgment of the fundamental truth of their 
own system. To the Pagan Arab, somewhat imbued with the senti¬ 
ments and knowledge of his Jewish or Christian fellow-citizen, it 
offered no offensive, or very improbable theology. This recommenda¬ 
tion procured to Mohometanism a more favorable reception at Me¬ 
dina, than its author had been able, by twelve years’ painful en¬ 
deavors, to obtain for it at Mecca. Yet, after all, the progress of the 
religion was inconsiderable. His missionary could only collect 
a congregation of forty persons.il It was not a religious, but a politi¬ 
cal association, which ultimately introduced Mahomet into Medina. 
Harassed as it should seem, and disgusted by the long continuance 
of factions and disputes, the inhabitants of that city saw' in the ad¬ 
mission of the prophet’s authority, a rest from the miseries which 
they had suffered, and a suppression of the violence and fury which 
they had learned to condemn. After an embassy, therefore, com¬ 
posed of believers and unbelievers,ir and of persons of both tribes, 
with whom a treaty was concluded of strict alliance and support, 
Mahomet made his public entry, and was received as the sovereign 
of Medina. 

From this time, or soon after this time, the impostor changed his 
language and his conduct. Having now a tow'n at his com.mand, 
where to arm his party, and to head them with security, he enters 
upon new counsels. He now pretends that a divine commission is 
given him to attack the infidels, to destroy idolatry, and to set up the 

* Mod. Univ. Hist. vol. i. p. 1‘26. f Ib. p. 112. 

I This latter, however, already prevailed amongst the Arabs, and had 
grown out of their excessive veneration for the Caaba. Mahomet's law, 

in this respect, was rather a compliance than an innovation.—Sale's 
Prelim. Disc. p. 122. 

§ Mod. Univ. Hist. vol. i. p. 100. |( Ib. p. 85. 


TT Ibid. 



Evidences of Christianity. 223 

tniG fhitli by the sword.* An cnrly victory over a very superior 
force, achieved by conduct and bravery, established the renown of 
his arms, and of his personal character.t Every year after this was 
marked Ity battles or assassinations. The nature and activity of Ma¬ 
homet’s future exertions may be estimated from the computation, 
’^hat, in the nine following years of his life, he commanded his army 
in person in eight general engagements,! and undertook, by himself 
or his lieutenants, fifty military enterprises. 

From this time we have nothing left to account for, but that Ma¬ 
homet should collect an army, that his army should conquer, and 
that his religion should proceed together with his conquests. The 
ordinary experience of human affairs, leaves us little to wonder at, 
in any of these effects: and they were likewise each assisted by 
peculiar facilities. From all sides, the roving Arabs crowded round 
the standard of religion and plunder, of freedom and victory, of 
arms and rapine. Besides the highly painted joys of a carnal para¬ 
dise, Mahomet rewarded his followers in this world with a liberal 
division of the spoils, and with the persons of their female captives.^ 
The condition of Arabia, occupied by small independent tribes, ex¬ 
posed it to the impression, and yielded to the progress, of a firm 
and resolute arnw. After the reduction of his native peninsula, the 
weakness also of the Roman provinces on the north and the west, 
as well as the distracted state of the Persian empire on the east, 
facilitated the successful invasion of neighboring countries. That 
Mahomet’s conquests should carry his religion along with them, will 
excite little surprise, when w^e know the conditions which he pro¬ 
posed to the vanquished. Death or conversion was the only choice 
offered to idolaters. ‘ Strike off their heads! strike off all the ends 
of their fingers! || kill the idolaters wheresoever ye shall find them I’lT 
To the Jews and Christians was left the somewhat milder alterna¬ 
tive of subjection and tribute, if they persisted in their own reli¬ 
gion, or of an equal participation in the rights and liberties, the 
honors and privileges, of the faithful, if they embraced the religion 
of their conquerors. ‘Ye Christian dogs, you know your option, the 
Koran, the tribute, or the sword.’** The corrupted state of Chris¬ 
tianity in the seventh century, and the contentions of its sects, un¬ 
happily so fell in with men’s care of their safety, or their fortunes, 
as to induce many to forsake its profession. Add to all which, that 
Mahomet’s victories not only operated by the natural effect of 
conquest, but that they were constantly represented, both to his 
friends and enemies, as divine declarations in his favor. Success 
was evidence. Prosperity carried with it, not only influence, but 
proof ‘Ye have already (says he, after the battle of Bedr) had a 
miracle shown you, in two armies which attacked each other; one 
army fought for God’s true religion, but the other were infidels.’tt 


* Mod Univ. Hist. vol. i. p. 88. 
t Mod. Univ. Hist. vol. i. p. 255. 
II Sale’s Koran, c. viii. p. 140. 

♦* Gibbon, vol. ix. p. 337. 


t Viet, of Bedr, ib. p. 106. 

§ Gibbon, vol. ix. p. 255. 

ir Ib. c. ix. p. 149. 

tt Sale’s Koran, c. iii. p. 36. 



224 


Palsy's View of the 

Again; ‘ Ye slew not those who w^re slain at Redr, but God slew 
them.—'If ye desire a decision of the matter between us, now hath 
a decision come unto you.’^ 

Many more passages might be collected out of the Koran to the 
same effect. But they are unnecessary. The success of Mahome¬ 
tanism during this, and indeed, every future period of its history, 
bears so little resemblance to the early propagation of Christianity, 
that no inference whatever can justly be drawn from it to the pre¬ 
judice of the Christian argument. For, what are we comparing? A 
Galilean peasant accompanied by a few fishermen, with a conqueror 
at the head of his army. We compare Jesus, without force, without 
power, without support, without one external circumstance of at¬ 
traction or influence, prevailing against the prejudices, the learning, 
the hierarchy, of his country \ against the ancient religious opinions, 
the pompous religious rites, the philosophy, the wisdom, the au¬ 
thority of the Roman empire, in the most polished and enlightened 
period of its existence; with Mahomet making his way amongst 
Arabs; collecting followers in the midst of conquests and triumphs, 
in the'darkest ages and countries of the world, and when success in 
arms not only operated by that command of men’s wills and persons 
which attends prosperous undertakings, but was considered as a 
sure testimony of divine approbation. That multitudes, persuaded 
by this argument, should join the train of a victorious chief; that 
still greater multitudes should, without any argument, bow down 
before irresistible power; is a conduct in which we cannot see much 
to surprise us; in which we can see nothing that resembles the causes 
by which the establishment of Christianity was effected. 

The success, therefore, of Mahometanism, stands not in the way 
of this important conclusion ; that the propagation of Christianity, 
in the manner and under the circumstances in which it was propa 
gated, is a unique in the history of the species. A Jewish peasant 
overthrew the religion of the world. 

I have, nevertheless, placed the prevalency of the religion 
amongst the auxiliary arguments of its truth; because, whether it 
had prevailed or not, or whether its prevalency can or cannot be ac¬ 
counted for, the direct argument remains still. It is still true that a 
great number of men upon the spot, personally connected with the 
history and with the author of the religion, were induced by w hat 
they heard, and saw, and knew, not only to change their former 
opinions, but to give up their time, and sacrifice their ease, to tra¬ 
verse seas and kingdoms without rest and without weariness, to 
commit themselves to extreme dangers, to undertake incessant toils, 
to undergo grievous sufferings, and all this, solely in consequence, 
and in support, of their belief of facts, which, if true, establish the 
truth of the religion, which, if false, they must have known to be so 


* Sale’s Koran, c. viii. p. 141. 



Evidences of Christianity. 225 

jt^ARr III. 

A BRIEF CONSIDERATION OF SOME POPULAR OBJEC¬ 
TIONS. 


CHAP. I. 

The Discrepancies between the several Gospels. 

I KNOW not a more rash or unphilosophical conduct of the under¬ 
standing, than to reject the substance of a story, by reason of some 
diversity in the circumstances with which it is related. The usual 
character of human testimony is substantial truth under circumstan¬ 
tial variety. This is what the daily experience of courts of justice 
teaches. When accounts of a transaction come from the mouths 
of different witnesses, it is seldom that it is not possible to pick out 
apparent or real inconsistencies between them. These inconsisten¬ 
cies are studiously displayed by an adverse pleader, but oftentimes 
with little impression upon the minds of the judges. On the con¬ 
trary, a close and minute agreement induces the suspicion of con¬ 
federacy and fraud. When written histories touch upon the same 
scenes of action, the comparison almost always affords ground for a 
like reflection. Numerous, and sometimes important, variations 
present themselves ; not seldom also, absolute and final contradic¬ 
tions ; yet neither one nor the other, are deemed sufficient to shake 
the credibility of the main fact. The embassy of the Jews to depre¬ 
cate the execution of Claudian’s order to place his statue in their 
temple, Philo places in harvest, Josephus in seed-time; both con¬ 
temporary writers. No reader is led by this inconsistency to doubt, 
whether such an embassy was sent, or whether such an order was 
given. Our own history supplies examples of the same kind. In 
the account of the Marquis of Argyll’s death, in the reign of Charles 
the Second, we have a very remarkable contradiction. Lord Clar¬ 
endon relates that he was condemned to be hanged, which was 
performed the same day; on the contrary, Burnet, Woodrow, Heath, 
Echard, concur in stating that he was beheaded ; and that he was 
condemned upon the Saturday, and executed upon the Monday.* 
Was any reader of English history ever sceptic enough to raise 
from hence a question, whether the Marquis of Argyll w'as executed 
or not? Yet this ought to be left in uncertainty, according to the 
principles upon which the Christian history has sometimes been at¬ 
tacked. Dr. Middleton contended, that the different hours of the 
day assigned to the crucifixion of Christ, by John and by the other 
evangelists, did not admit of the reconcilement which learned men 
had proposed; and then concludes the discussion with this hard 


* See Biog. Britann. 




226 Paleyh View of the 

remark: ‘ We must be forced, with several of the critics, to leave 
the difficulty just as we found it, chargeable with all the conse¬ 
quences of manifest inconsistency.’* But what are these conse¬ 
quences ? By no means the discrediting of the history as to the 
principal fact, by a repugnancy (even supposing that repugnancy not 
to be resolvable into different modes of computation) in the time of 
the day in which it is said to have taken place. 

A great deal of the discrepancy observable in the Gospels, arises 
from omission; from a fact or a passage of Christ’s life being no¬ 
ticed by one writer, which is unnoticed by another. •Now, omis¬ 
sion is at all times a very uncertain ground of objection. We per¬ 
ceive it, not only in the comparison of different writers, but even 
in the same writer when compared with himself There are a great 
many particulars, and some of them of importance, mentioned by 
Josephus in his Antiquities, which, as we should have supposed, 
ught to have been put down by him in their place in the Jewish 
Wars.t Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, have, all three, written of 
the reign of Tiberius. Each has mentioned many things omitted 
by the rest,t yet no objection is from thence taken to the respective 
credit of their histories. We have in our own times, if there were 
not something indecorous in the comparison, the life of an eminent 
person, written by three of his friends, in which there is very great 
variety in the incidents selected by them; some apparent, and per¬ 
haps some real contradictions ; yet without any impeachment of the 
substantial truth of their accounts, of the authenticity of the books, 
of the competent information or general fidelity of the writers. 

But these discrepancies will be still more numerous, when men 
do not write histories, but memoirs; which is perhaps the true 
name and proper description of our Gospels: that is, when they do 
not undertake, or ever meant, to deliver, in order of time, a regular 
and complete account of all the things of importance, which the 
person, who is the subject of their history, did or said; but only, 
out of many similar ones, to give such passages or such actions and 
discourses, as offered themselves more immediately to their atten¬ 
tion, came in the way of their inquiries, occurred to their recollec¬ 
tions, or were suggested by their particular design at the time of 
writing. 

This particular design may appear sometimes, but not always, 
nor often. Thus I think that the particular design which Saint 
Matthew had in view whilst he was writing the history of the 
resurrection, was to attest the faithful performance of Christ’s prom- 
se to his disciples to go before them into Galilee; because he alone, 
except Mark, who seems to have taken it from him, has recorded 
this promise, and he alone has confined his narrative to that single 
appearance to the disciples which fulfilled it. It was the precon¬ 
certed, the great and most public manifestation of our Lord’s person. 
It was the thing which dwelt upon Saint Matthew’s mind, and he 


* Middleton’s Reflections answered by Benson. Hist. Christ, vol. iii. 
p. 50. t Lardner, Cred. part i. vol. ii. p. 735, &c. J Ib. p. 743. 



Evidences of Christianity. 227 

adapted his narrative to it. But, that there is nothing in Saint Mat¬ 
thew’s language, which negatives other appearances, or which im¬ 
ports that this appearance to his disciples in Galilee in pursuance 
of his promise, was his first or only appearance, is made pretty evi¬ 
dent by Saint Mark’s Gospel, which uses the same terms concern¬ 
ing the appearance in Galilee as Saint Matthew uses, yet itself 
records two other appearances prior to this: ‘ Go your way, tell his 
disciples and Peter, that he goeth before you into Galilee: there 
shall ye see him as he said unto you.’ (xvi. 7). We might be apt to 
infer from these words, that this was the first time they were to see 
him: at least, we might infer it, with as much reason as we draw 
the inference from the same words in Matthew; yet the historian 
himself did not perceive that he was leading his readers to any 
such conclusion ; for in the twelfth and two following verses of this 
chapter, he informs us of two appearances, which, by comparing the 
order of events, are shown to have been prior to the appearance in 
Galilee. ‘ He appeared in another form unto two of them, as they 
walked, and went into the country: and they went and told it unto 
the residue, neither believed they them: afterward he appeared 
unto the eleven, as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their 
un relief, because they believed not them that had seen him after 
he was risen.’ 

Probably the same observation, concerning the particular design 
which guided the historian, may be of use in comparing many other 
passages of the Gospels. 


CHAP. II. 

Erroneous Opinions imputed to the Apostles. 

A SPECIES of candor which is shown towards every other book, 
is sometimes refused to the Scriptures; and that is, the placing of a 
distinction between judgment and testimony. We do not usually 
question the credit of a writer, by reason of an opinion he may have 
delivered upon subjects unconnected with his evidence : and 
even upon subjects connected with his account, or mixed with it in 
the same discourse or writing, we naturally separate facts from opin¬ 
ions, testimony from observation, narrative from argument. 

To apply this equitable consideration to the Christian records, 
much controversv and much objection has been raised concerning 
the quotations of the Old Testament found in the New; some of 
which quotations, it is said, are applied in a sense, and to events, 
apparently different from that which they bear, and from those to 
vyhich they belong, in the original. It is probable to my apprehen¬ 
sion, that many of these quotations were intended by the writers of 
the New Testament as nothing more than accommodations. They 
quoted passages of their Scripture, which suited, and fell in with, 
the occasion before them, without always undertaking to assert, 
that the occasion w’as in the view of the author of the W'ords. Such 
accommodations of passages from old authors, from books especially 


228 


Paley's View of the 

which are in every one’s hands, are common wifh waiters of all 
countries; but in none, perhaps, were more to be expected than in 
the writings of the Jews, whose literature was almost entirely con¬ 
fined to their Scriptures. Those prophecies which are alleged with 
more solemnity, and which are accompanied with a precise decla¬ 
ration, that they originally respected the event then related, are, I 
think, truly alleged. But were it otherwise; is the judgment of 
the writers of the New Testament, in interpreting passages of the 
Old, or sometimes, perhaps, in receiving established interpretations, 
so connected either with their veracity, or with their means of in¬ 
formation concerning what was passing in their own times, as that 
a critical mistake, evea were it clearly made out, should overthrow 
their historical credit ?—Does it diminish it ? Has it any thing to do 
with it ? 

Another error imputed to the first Christians, was the expected 
approach of the day of judgment. I would introduce this objection 
by a remark upon what appears to me a somewhat similar example. 
Our Saviour, speaking to Peter of John, said, ‘If I will that he tarry 
till I come, what is that to thee?’* These words, we find, had been 
so misconstrued, as that a report from thence ‘ went abroad among 
the brethren, that that disciple should not die.’ Suppose that this 
had come down to us amongst the prevailing opinions of the early 
Christians, and that the particular circumstance, from which the 
rnistake sprang, had been lost (which, humanly speaking, was most 
likely to have been the case), some, at this day, would have been 
ready to regard and quote the error, as an impeachment of the whole 
Christian system. Yet with how little justice such a conclusion 
would have been drawn, or rather such a presumption taken up, the 
information which we happen to possess, enables us now to per¬ 
ceive. To those who think that the Scriptures lead us to believe, 
that the early Christians, and even the apostles, expected the ap¬ 
proach of the day of judgment in their own times, the same reflec¬ 
tion will occur, as that which we have made with respect to the 
more partial, perhaps, and temporary, but still no less ancient error, 
concerning the duration of St. John’s life. It was an error, it may 
be likewise said, which would effectually hinder those who enter¬ 
tained it from acting the part of impostors. 

The difficulty which attends the subject of the present chapter, 
is contained in this question; If we once admit the fallibility of the 
apostolic judgment, where are we to stop, or in what can we rely 
upon it? To which question, as arguing with unbelievers, and as 
arguing for the substantial truth of the Christian history, and for 
that alone, it is competent to the advocate of Christianity to reply. 
Give me the apostles’ testimony, and I do not stand in need of their, 
judgment; give me the facts, and I have complete security for 
every conclusion I want. 

But, although I think that it is competent to the Christian apolo¬ 
gist to return this answer; I do not tMnk that is the only answer 


* John xxi. 22. 




Evidences of Chrislianity. 229 

which the objection is capable of receiving. The two following 
cautions, founded, I apprehend, in the most reasonable distinction^ 
will exclude all uncertainty upon this head which can be attended 
wath danger. 

First, to separate what was the object of the apostolic mission, 
and declared by them to be so, from what was extraneous to it, or 
only incidentally connected with it. Of points clearly extraneous to 
the religion, nothing need be said. Of points incidentally connected 
with It, something may be added. Demoniacal possession is one of 
these points: concermng the reality of which, as this place will not 
admit the examination, or even the production of the argument on 
either side of the question, it would be arrogance in me to deliver 
And it is unnecessary. For w’hat I am concerned 
to observe is, that even they who think it was a general, but erro¬ 
neous opinion, of those times; and that the writers of the New Tes¬ 
tament, in common with other Jewish writers of that age, fell into 
the manner of speaking and of thinking upon the subject, which 
then univeraally prevailed, need not be alarmed by the concession, 
as though they had any thing to fear from it, for the truth of Chris¬ 
tianity. The doctrine was not what Christ brought into the world. 

It appears in the Christian records, incidentally and accidentally, as 
being the subsisting opinion of the age and country in which his 
ministry was exercised. It was no part of the object of his revela¬ 
tion, to regulate other men’s opinions concerning the action of spir- 
itu£U substances ujxm animal bodies. At any rate, it is unconnected 
with testimony. If a dumb person was by a word restored to the 
use of his speech, it signifies little to what cause the dumbness was 
ascribed ; and the like of every other cure wrought upon those W'ho 
are said to have been possessed. The malady was real, the cure 
was real, whether the popular explication of the cause was well 
founded, or not. The matter of fact, the change, so far as it was an 
object of sense, or of testimony, was in either case the same. 

Secondly, that, in reading the apostolic w'ritings, we distinguish 
between their doctrines and their arguments. Their doctrines came 
to them by revelation properly so called; yet in propounding these 
doctrines in their writings or discourses, they were wont to illus¬ 
trate, support, and enforce them, by such analogies, arguments, and 
considerations, as their owm thoughts suggested. Thus the call of 
the Gentiles, that is, the admission of the Gentiles to the Christian 
profession without a previous subjection to the law of Moses, was 
imparted to the apostles by revelation, and was attested by the mir- - 
acles which attended the Christian ministry among them. The 
apostles’ own assurance of the matter rested upon this foundation. 
Nevertheless, Saint Paul, when treating of the subject, offers a great 
variety of topics in its proof and vindication. The doctrine itself 
must be received; but it is not necessary, in order to defend Chris¬ 
tianity, to defend the propriety of every comparison, or the validity 
of every argument, which the apostle has brought into the discus¬ 
sion. The same observation applies to some other instances; and is, 
in my opinion, very well founded; ‘When divine writers argue 


230 Foley's View of the 

upon any point, we are always bound to believe the conclusions 
that their reasonings end in, as parts of divine revelation: but we 
are not bound to be able to make out, or even to assent to, all the 
premises made use of by them, in their whole extent, unless it ap¬ 
pear plainly, that they affirm the premises as expressly as they do 
the conclusions proved by them.’* 

CHAP. III. 

The Connexion of Christianity with the Jewish History. 

Undoubtedly our Saviour assumes the divine origin of the Mo 
saic institution: and, independently of his authority, I conceive it 
to be very difficult to assign any other cause for the commencement 
or existence of that institution; especially for the singular circum¬ 
stance of the Jews’ adhering to the unity, when every other people 
slid into polytheism; for their being men in religion, children in 
every thing else; behind other nations in the arts of peace and war, 
superior to the most improved in their sentiments and doctrines 
relating to the Deity.t Undoubtedly, also, our Saviour recognizes 
the prophetic character of many of their ancient writers. So far, 
therefore, we are bound as Christians to go. But to make Chris¬ 
tianity answerable with its life, for the circumstantial truth of each 
separate passage of the Old Testament, the genuineness of eve^ 
book, the information, fidelity, and judgment, of every writer in it, 
is to bring, I will not say great, but unnecessary difficulties, into the 
whole system. These bo(^s were universally read and received by 
the Jews of our Saviour’s time. He and his apostles, in common 
with all other Jews, referred to them, alluded to them, used them. 
Yet, except where he expressly ascribes a divine authority to par¬ 
ticular predictions, I do not know that we can strictly draw any 
conclusion from the books being so used and applied, beside the 
proof, which it unquestionably is, of their notoriety, and reception at 
that time. In this view, our Scriptures afford a valuable testimony 


* Burnet’s Expos, art. fi. 

t ‘ In the doctrine, for example, of the unity, the eternity, the omnipo¬ 
tence, the omniscience, the omnipresence, the wisdom, and the goodness, 
of God ; in their opinions concerning Providence, and the creation, pre¬ 
servation, and government of the world.’ Campbell on Mir. p. 207. To 
which we may add, in the acts of their religion not being accompanied 
either with cruelties or impuiities: in the religion itself being free from 
a species of superstition which prevailed universally in the popular reli¬ 
gions of the ancient world, and which is to be found perhaps in all reli¬ 
gions that have their origin in human artifice and credulity, viz. fanciful 
connexions between certain appearances and actions, and the destiny of 
nations or individuals. Upon these conceits rested the whole train of 
auguries and auspices, which formed so much even of the serious part of 
the religions of Greece and Rome, and of the charms and incantations 
which were practised in those countries by the common people. From 
every thing of this sort the religion of the Jews, alone, was free. Vide 
Priestley’s Lectures on the Truth of the Jewish and Christian Revela¬ 
tion, 1794. 



Evidences of Christianity. 231 

to those of the Jews. But the nature of this testimony ought to be 
understood. It is surely very different from, what it is sometimes 
represented to be, a specific ratification of each particular fkct and 
opimon; and not only of each particular fact, but of the motives 
assigned for every action, together with the judgment of praise or 
dispraise bestowed upon them. Saint James, in his Epistle,=^ says, 
‘ Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of 
the Lord.’ Notwithstanding this text, the reality of Job’s history, 
and even the existence of such a person, has been always deemed 
a fair subject of inquiry and discussion amongst Christian divines 
Saint James’s authority is considered as good evidence of the exist¬ 
ence of the book of Job at that time, and of its reception by the 
Jews; and of nothing more. Saint Paul, in his second Epistle to 
Timothy,t has this similitude : ‘ Now, as Jannes and Jambres with¬ 
stood Moses, so do these also resist the truth.’ These names are 
not found in the Old Testament. And it is uncertain, whether 
Saint Paul took them from some apxicryphal writing then extant, or 
from tradition. But no one ever imagined, that Saint Paul is here 
asserting the authority of the writing, if it was a written account 
which he quoted, or making himself answerable for the authenticity 
of the tradition ; much less, that he so involves himself with either 
of these questions, as that the credit of his own history and mission 
should depend upon the fact, whether Jannes and Jambres with¬ 
stood Moses, or not. For what reason a more rigorous interpreta¬ 
tion should be put upon other references, it is difficult to know. I 
do not mean, that other passages of the Jewish history stand upon 
no better evidence than the history of Job, or of Jannes and Jambres 
(I think much otherwise); but I mean, that a reference in the New 
Testament, to a passage in the Old, does not so fix its authority, as 
to exclude all inquiry into its credibility, or into the separate reasons 
upon which that credibility is founded : and that it is an unwar¬ 
rantable, as well as an unsafe rule to lay down concerning the 
Jewish history, what was never laid down concerning any other, 
that either every particular of it must be true, or the whole false. 

I have thought it necessa^ to state this point explicitly, because 
a fashion, revived by Voltaire, and pursued by the disciples of his 
school, seems to have much prevailed of late, of attacking Chris¬ 
tianity through the sides of Judaism. Some objections of this class 
are founded in misconstruction, some in exaggeration; but all pro¬ 
ceed upon a supposition, which has not been made out by argu¬ 
ment, viz. that the attestation, which the Author and first teachers 
of Christianity gave to the divine mission of Moses and the prophets, 
extends to every point and portion of the Jewish history; and so 
extends as to make Christianity responsible in its own credibility, 
for the circumstantial truth (I had almost said for the critical exact¬ 
ness) of every narrative contained in the Old Testament. 


* Chap. V. II. 


t Chap. iii. 8. 



232 


Paley's View of the 

CHAP. IV. 

Rejection of Christianity. 

We acknowledge that the Christian religion, although it converted 
great numbers, did not produce a universal, or even a general, con¬ 
viction in the minds of men, of the age and countries in which it 
appeared. And this want of a more complete and extensive success, 
is called the rejection of the Christian history and miracles; and has 
been thought by some to form a strong objection to the reality of 
the facts which the history contains. 

The matter of the objection divides itself into two parts; as it re¬ 
lates to the Jews, and as it relates to Heathen nations: because 
the minds of these two descriptions of men may have been, with 
respect to Christianity, under the influence of very different causes. 
The case of the Jews, inasmuch as our Saviour’s ministry was 
originally addressed to them, oflfers itself first to our consideration. 

‘Now, upon the subject of the truth of the Christian religion; 
with us, there is but one question, viz. whether the miracles were 
actually wrought ? From acknowledging the miracles, we pass in¬ 
stantaneously to the acknowledgment of the whole. No doubt lies 
between the premises and the conclusion. If we believe the works, 
or any one of them, we believe in Jesus. And this order of reasoning 
is become so universal and familiar, that we do not readily appre¬ 
hend how it could ever have been otherwise. Yet it appears to 
me perfectly certain, that the state of thought, in the mind of a Jew 
of our Saviour’s age, was totally different from this. After allowing 
the reality of the miracle, he had a great deal to do to persuade 
himself that Jesus was the Messiah. This is clearly intimated by 
various passages of the Gospel history. It appears that, in the ap¬ 
prehension of the writers of the New Testament, the miracles did 
not irresistibly carry, even those who saw them, to the conclusion 
intended to be drawn from them ; or so compel assent, as to leave 
no room for suspense, for the exercise of candor, or the effects of 
prejudice. And to this point, at least, the evangelists may be al¬ 
lowed to be good witnesses; because it is a point in which exag¬ 
geration or disguise would have been the other way. Their ac¬ 
counts, if they could be suspected of falsehood, would rather have 
magnified, than diminished, the effects of the miracles. 

John vii. 21—31. ‘Jesus answered, and said unto them, I have 
■done one work, and ye all marvel.—If a man on the sabbath-day 
receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; 
are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole 
on the sabbath-day? Judge not according to the appearance, but 
judge righteous judgment. Then said some of them of Jerusalem, 
Is not this he whom they seek to kill ? But, lo, he speaketh boldly 
and they say nothing to him: do the rulers know indeed that this 
is the very Christ ? Hcrwbeit we know this man, whence he is, hut when 
Christ comelh, no man knoweih whence he is. Then cried Jesus in 
the temple as he taught, saying. Ye both know me, and ye know 
whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is 


Evidences of Christianity. 


233 


true, whom ye know not. But I know him, for I am from him and 

hands on him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of 
the people believed on him, and said, When Christ camelh, will lie do 
more miracles than those which this man hath done r 

observable. It exhibits the reasoning of dif. 
lerent sorts of persons upon the occasion of a miracle, which per¬ 
sons of all sorte are represented to have acknowledged as real. One 
sort of men thought, that there was something very extraordinary 
m all this ; but that still Jesus could not be the Christ, because there 
was a circumstance in his appearance which militated with an onin- 
lon concerning Christ, in which they had been brought up, and of 
the truth of which, it is probable, they had never entertained a 
particle of doubt, m. that ‘ When Christ cometh, no man knoweth 
whence he is. Another sort were inclined to believe him to be 
the Messiah. But even these did not argue as we should: did not 
consider the miracle as of itself decisive of the question ; as what 
if once allowed, excluded all farther debate upon the subject; but 
munded their opinion upon a kind of comparative reasoning, ‘ When 
Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than those which this man 
hath done ? 


Another passage in the same evangelist, and observable for the 
same purpose, is that in which he relates the resurrection of Laza¬ 
rus .• ‘Jesus,’he tells us (xi. 43,44), ‘when he had thus spoken, 
cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth; and he that was dead 
came torth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes, and his face 
wa^s bound about with a napkin. Jesus said unto them, Loose him, 
and let him go.’ One might have suspected, that at least all those 
who stood by the sepulchre, when Lazarus was raised, would have 

believed in Jesus. Yet the evangelist does not so represent it-_ 

‘Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the 
things which Jesus did, believed on him; but some of them went their 
ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.’ 
We cannot suppose that the evangelist meant by this account, to 
leave his readers to imagine, that any of the spectators doubted 
about the truth of the miracle. Far from it. Unquestionably he 
states the miracle to have been fully allowed : yet the persons who 
allowed it, were, according to his representation, capable of retain¬ 
ing hoslile sentiments towards Jesus. ‘ Believing in Jesus’ was not 
only to believe that he wrought miracles, but that he was the Mes¬ 
siah. With us there is no difference between these two things: 
with them, there was the greatest; and the difference is apparent 
in this transaction. If Saint John has represented the conduct of 
the Jews upon this occasion truly (and wny he should not I cannot 
tell, for it rather makes against him than for him), it shows clearly 
the principles upon which their judgment proceeded. Whether he 
has related the matter truly or not, the relation itself discovers the 
writer’s own opinion of those principles: and that alone possesses 
considerable authority. In the next chapter, we have a reflection 
of the evangelist, entirely suited to this state of the case: ‘ but 


U2 


234 Paley's Vieiv of the 

though he had done so many miracles before them, yet believed 
th^ not on him.’* The evangelist does not mean to impute the 
defect of their belief to any doubt about the miracles; but to their 
not perceiving, what all now sufficiently perceive, and what they 
would have perceived, had not their understandings been governed 
by strong prejudices, the infallible attestation which the works of 
Jesus bore to the truth of his pretensions. 

The ninth chapter of Saint John’s Gospel contains a very circum¬ 
stantial account of the cure of a blind man: a miracle submitted to 
all the scrutiny and examination which a sceptic could propose. If 
a modem unbeliever had drawn up the interrogatories, they could 
hardly have been more critical or searching. The account contains 
also a very curious conference between the Jewish rulers and the 
patient, in which the point for our present notice is their resistance 
of the force of the miracle, and of the conclusion to w'hich it led, 
after they had failed in discrediting its evidence. ‘We know that 
God spake unto Moses but as for this fellow, we know not whence 
he is.’ That w'as the answer which set their minds at rest. And by 
the help of much prejudice, and great unwillingness to yield, it 
might do so. In the mind of the poor man restor^ to sight, which 
was under no such bias, and felt no such reluctance, the miracle 
had its natural operation. ‘ Herein,’ says he, ‘ is a marvellous thing 
that ye know not from whence he is, yet he hath opened mine eyes. 
Now we know, that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a 
worshipper of God, and doeth his w'ill, him he heareth. Since the 
world began, was it not heard, that any man opiened the eyes of one 
that was bom blind. If this man were not of God, he could do 
nothing.’ We do not find, that the Jewish rulers had any other re¬ 
ply to make to this defence, than that which authority is sometimes 
apt to make to argument, ‘ Dost thou teach us ?’ 

If it shall be inquired, how a turn of thought, so different from 
what prevails at present, should obtain currency with the ancient 
Jews; the answer is found in two opinions which are proved to 
have subsisted in that age and country. The one was, their expec¬ 
tation of a Messiah of a kind totally contrary to what the appear¬ 
ance of Jesus bespoke him to be; the other, their persuasion of the 
agency of demons in the production of supernatural effects. These 
opinions are not supposed by us for the purpose of argument, but are 
evidently recognized in Jewish writings, as well as in ours. And it 
ought moreover to be considered, that in these opinions the Jews of 
that age had been from their infancy brought up; that they were 
opinions, the grounds of which they had probably few of them in¬ 
quired into, and of the truth of which they entertained no doubt. And 
I think that these two opinions conjointly afford an explanation of 
their conduct. The first put them upon seeking out some excuse 
to themselves for not receiving Jesus in the character in which he 
claimed to be received; and the second supplied them with just 
such an excuse as they wanted. Let Jesus work what miracles he 


* Chap. xii. 37. 



Evidences of Christianity. 235 

would, still the answer was in readiness, ‘ that he wrought them by 
the assistance of Beelzebub.’ And to this answer no reply could be 
made, but that which our Saviour did make, by showing that the 
tendency of his mission was so adverse to the views with which 
was, by the objectors themselves, supposed to act, that it 
could not reasonably be supposed that he would assist in carrying it 
on. The power displayed in the miracles did not alone refute the 
Jewish solution, because the interposition of invisible agents beino- 
once admitted, it is impossible to ascertain the limits by which their 
efficiency is circumscribed. We of this day may be disposed, possi¬ 
bly, to think such opinions too absurd to have been ever seriously 
entertained. I am not bound to'contend for the credibility of the 
opinions. They were at least as reasonable as the belief in witch¬ 
craft. They were opinions in which the Jews of that age had from 
their infan^ been instructed ,* and those who cannot see enough in 
the force of this reason, to account for their conduct towards our 
Saviour, do not sufficiently consider how such opinions may some¬ 
times become very general in a country, and with what pertinacity, 
when once become so, they are, for that reason alone, adhered to. 
In the suspense which these notions, and the prejudices resulting 
from them, might occasion, the candid and docile and humble- 
minded would probably decide in Christ’s favor; the proud and ob¬ 
stinate, together with the giddy and the thoughtless, almost univer- 
salty against him. 

This state of opinion discovers to us also the reason of what some 
choose to wonder at, why the Jews should reject miracles when 
they saw them, yet rely so much upon the tradition of them in their 
own history. It does not appear that it had ever entered into the 
minds of those who lived in the time of Moses and the prophets, 
to ascribe their miracles to the supernatural agency of evil beings. 
The solution v/as not then invented. The authority of Moses and 
the prophets being established, and become the foundation of the 
national polity and religion, it was not probable that the later Jews, 
brought up in a reverence for that religion, and the subjects of that 
polity, should apply to their history a reasoning which tended to 
overthrow the foundation of both. 

II. The infidelity of the Gentile world, and that more especially 
of men of rank and learning in it, is resolved into a principle which, 
in my judgment, will account for the inefficacy of any argument, or 
any evidence whatever, viz. contempt prior to examination. The 
state of religion amongst the Greeks and Romans, had a natural 
tendency to induce this disposition. Dionysius Halicamassensis re¬ 
marks, that there were six hundred different kinds of religions or 
sacred rites exercised at Rome.* The superior classes of the com 
munity treated them all as fables. Can we wonder then, that Chris¬ 
tianity was included in the number, without inquiry into its sepa¬ 
rate merits, or the particular grounds of its pretensions ? It might be 
either true or false for any thing they knew about it. ’The religion 


♦ Jortin’s Remarks on Eccl. Hist. vol. i. p. 371. 



236 


Paley's View of the 

had nothing in its character which immediately engaged their no¬ 
tice. It mixed with no politics. It produced no fine writers. It 
contained no curious speculations. When it did reach their know¬ 
ledge, I doubt not but that it appeared to them a very strange sys¬ 
tem,—so unphilosophical,—dealing so little in argument and discus¬ 
sion, in such arguments however and discussions as they were ac¬ 
customed to entertain. What is said of Jesus Christ, of his nature, 
office, and ministry, would be in the highest degree alien from the 
conceptions of their theology. The Redeemer and the destined 
Judge of the human race, a poor young man, executed at Jerusalem 
with two thieves upon a cross! Still more would the language in 
which the Christian doctrine was delivered, be dissonant and bar¬ 
barous to their ears. What knew they of grace, of redemption, of 
justification, of the blood of Christ shed for the sins of men, of re¬ 
concilement, of mediation ? Christianity was made up of points they 
had never thought of; of terms which they had never heard. 

It was presented also to the imagination of the learned Heathen 
under additional disadvantage, by reason of its real, and still more 
of its nominal, connexion with Judaism. It shared in the obloquy 
and ridicule with which that people and their religion were treated 
by the Greeks and Romans. They regarded Jehovgih himself only 
as the idol of the Jewish nation, and what was related of him, as 
of a piece with what was told of the tutelar deities of other coun¬ 
tries : nay, the Jews were in a particular manner ridiculed for being 
a credulous race; so that whatever reports of a miraculous nature 
came out of that country, were looked upon by the Heathen world 
as false and frivolous. When they heard of Christianity, they heard 
of it as a quarrel amongst this people, about some articles of their 
own superstition. Despising, therefore, as they did, the whole sys¬ 
tem, it was not probable that they would enter, with any degree of 
seriousness or attention, into the detail of its disputes, or the merits 
of either side. How little they knew, and with what carelessness 
they judged, of these matters, appears, I think, pretty plainly from 
an example of no less weight than that of Tacitus, who, in a grave 
and professed discourse upon the history of the Jews, states, that 
they worshipped the effigy of an ass.* The passage is a proof, how 
prone the learned men of those times were, and upon how little 
evidence, to heap together stories which might increase the con¬ 
tempt and odium in which that people was holden. The same fool 
ish charge is also confidently repeated by Plutarch.t 

It is observable, that all these considerations are of a nature to 
operate with the greatest force upon the highest ranks; upon men 
of education, and that order of the public from which writers are 
principally taken : I may add also, upon the philosophical as w'ell as 
the libertine character; upon the Antonines or Julian, not less than 
upon Nero or Domitian; and more particularly, upon that large and 
polished class of men, who acquiesced in the general persuasion, 
that all they had to do was to practise the duties of morality, and to 


* Tacit. Hist. lib. v. c. 2. 


t SympoB. lib. iv. quaest. 5. 



Evidences of Christianity, 23T 

worship the Deity more patrio; a habit of thinking, liberal as it may- 
appear, which shuts the door against every argument for a new 
religion. The considerations above mentioned, would acquire also- 
strength from the prejudice which men of rank and learning uni¬ 
versally entertain against any thing that originates with the vulgar 
and illiterate; w hich prejudice is known to be as obstinate as any 
prejudice whatever. 

Yet Christianity was still making its way: and, amidst so many 
impediments to its progress, so much difficulty in procuring audi¬ 
ence and attention, its actual success is more to be w^ondered at,, 
than that it should not have universally conquered scorn and indif¬ 
ference, fixed the levity of a voluptuous age, or, through a cloud of 
adverse prejudications, opened for itself a passage to the hearts and 
understandings of the scholars of the age. 

And the cause, which is here assigned for the rejection of Chris¬ 
tianity by men of rank and learning among the Heathens, namely,, 
a strong antecedent contempt, accounts also for their silence con¬ 
cerning it. If they had rejected it upon examination, they would 
have written about it; they would have given their reasons- 
Whereas, what men repudiate upon the strength of some prefixed 
persuasion, or from a settled contempt of the subject, of the persons 
who propose it, or of the manner in which it is proposed, they do 
not naturally write books about, or notice much in what they write 
upon other subjects. 

The letters of the Younger Pliny furnish an example of the silence, 
and let us, in some measure, into the cause of it. From his cele¬ 
brated correspondence with Trajan, we know that the Christian 
religion prevailed in a very considerable degree in the province 
over which he presided; that it had excited his attention; that he 
had inquired into the matter, just so much as a Roman magistrate 
might be expected to inquire, viz. whether the religion contained 
any opinions dangerous to government; but that of its doctrines, it» 
evidences, or its books, he had not taken the trouble to inform him¬ 
self with any degree of care or correctness. But although Pliny had 
viewed Christianity in a nearer position than most of his learned 
countrymen saw it in; yet he had regarded the whole with such 
negligence and disdain (farther than as it seemed to concern his 
administration), that, in more than two hundred and forty letters of 
his which have come down to us, the subject is never once again 
mentioned. If, out of this number, the two letters between him and 
Trajan had been lost; with what confidence would the obscurity 
of the Christian religion have been argued from Pliny’s silence about 
it, and with how little truth! 

The name and character which Tacitus has given to Christianity, 

‘ exitiabiKs superstitio,’ (a pernicious superstition), and by which two 
words he disposes of the whole question of the merits or demerits 
of the religion, afford a strong proof how little he knew, or con¬ 
cerned himself to know, about the matter. I apprehend that I shall 
not be contradicted, when I take upon me to assert, that no unbe¬ 
liever of the present age would apply this epithet to the Christianity 


238 Paley's View of the 

of the New Testament, or not allow that it was entirely unmerited 
Read the instructions given by a great teacher of the religion, to 
those very Roman converts of whom Tacitus speaks; and given also 
a very few years before the time of which he is speaking; and which 
are not, let it be observed, a collection of fine sayings brought to¬ 
gether from different parts of a large work, but stand in one entire 
passage of a public letter, without the intermixture of a single thought 
which is frivolous or exceptionable:—‘Abhor that which is evil, 
cleave to that which is good. Be kindly affectioned one to another, 
with brotherly love; in honor preferring one another: not slothful 
in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord; rejoicing in hope; 
patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer; distributing to 
the necessity of saints; given to hospitality. Bless them which per¬ 
secute you; bless, and curse not. Rejoice with them that do re¬ 
joice, and weep with them that weep. Be of the same mind one 
towards another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of 
low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. Recompense to no 
man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. 
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all 
men. Avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: 
for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord : 
therefore, if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him 
drink: for, in so doing, thou shall heap coals of fire on his head. Be 
not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. 

‘ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is 
no power but of God: the powers that be, are ordained of God. 
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisleth the ordinance of 
God: and they that resist, shall receive to themselves damnation. 
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou 
then not be afraid of the power ? Do that which is good, and thou 
shall have praise of the same: for he is the minister of God to thee 
for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid ; for he bear- 
eth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger 
to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must 
needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 
For, for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, 
attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all 
their dues: tribute, to whom tribute is due; custom, to whom cus¬ 
tom ; fear, to whom fear; honor, to whom honor. 

‘ Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that lov 
eth another, hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shall not commit 
adultery. Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal. Thou shall not 
bear false witness. Thou shall not covet; and if there be any other 
commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying. Thou shall 
love thy neighbor as thyself Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; 
therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. 

‘ And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake 
out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we be¬ 
lieved. The night is far spent, the day is at hand; let us therefore 
cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light 


Evidences of Christianity. 239 

Let us walk honestly, as in the day, not in rioting and drunkenness, 
not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.’* 

Read this, and then think of ‘exitiabilis superstitio!!’—Or, if we 
be not allowed, in contending with heathen authorities, to produce 
our books against theirs, we may at least be permitted to confront 
theirs with one another. Of this ‘ pernicious superstition,’ what 
could Pliny find to blame, when he was led, by his office, to insti¬ 
tute something like an examination into the conduct and principles 
of the sect ? He discovered nothing, but that they were wont to 
meet together on a stated day before it was light, and sing among 
themselves a hymn to Christ as a God, and to bind themselves by 
an oath, not to the commission of any wickedness, but, not to be 
guilty of theft, robbery, or adultery; never to falsify their word, nor 
to deny a pledge committed to them, when called upon to return it. 

Upon the words of Tacitus we may build the following observa¬ 
tions :— 

First; That we are well warranted in calling the view under 
which the learned men of that age beheld Christianity, an obscure 
and distant view. Had Tacitus known more of Christianity, of its 
precepts, duties, constitution, or design, however he had discredited 
the story, he would have respected the principle. He would have 
described the religion differently, though he had rejected it. It has 
been satisfactorily shown, that the ‘superstition’ of the Christians 
consisted in worshipping a person unknown to the Roman calendar; 
and that the ‘ perniciousness ’ with which they were reproached, 
was nothing else but their opposition to the established polytheism; 
and this view' of the matter was just such a one as might be ex¬ 
pected to occur to a mind, which held the sect in too much contempt 
to concern itself about the grounds and reasons of their conduct. 

Secondly; We may from hence remark, how little reliance can 
be placed upon the most acute judgments, in subjects which they 
are pleased to despise; and which, of course, they from the first 
consider as unworthy to be inquired into. Had not Christianity sur¬ 
vived to tell its own story, it must have gone down to posterity as a 
‘pernicious superstition;’ and that upon the credit of Tacitus’s ac¬ 
count much, I doubt not, strengthened by the name of the writer, 
and the reputation of his sagacity. 

Thirdly; That this contempt prior to examination, is an intellect- 
ual vice, from which the greatest faculties of mind are not free. I 
know not, indeed, whether men of the greatest faculties of mind, 
are not the most subject to it. Such men feel themselves seated 
upon an eminence. LooKing down from their height upon the follies 
of mankind, they behold contending tenets wasting their idle strength 
upon one another, with the common disdain of the absurdity of them 
all. This habit of thought, however comfortable to the mind which 
entertains it, or how'ever natural to great parts, is extremely danger¬ 
ous; and more apt than almost any other disposition, to produce 
hasty and contemptuous, and, by consequence, erroneous judgments. 
Doth of persons and opinions. 


* Romans xii. 9. xiii. 13. 



"240 Paley's View of the 

Fourthly; We need not be surprised at many writers of that age 
not mentioning Christianity at all: when they who did mention it, 
appear to have entirely misconceived its nature and character; and, 
in consequence of this misconception, to have regarded it with neg¬ 
ligence and contempt. 

To the knowledge of the greatest part of the learned Heathens, 
the facts of the Christian history could onty come by report. The 
books, probably, they never looked into. The settled habit of their 
minds was, and long had been, an indiscriminate rejection of all 
reports of the kind. With these sweeping conclusions, truty hath 
no chance. It depends upon distinction. If they would not inquire, 
how should they be convinced? It might be founded in truth, though 
they, who made no search, might not discover it. 

^ Men of rank and fortune, of wit and abilities, are often found, 
even in Christian countries, to be surprisingly ignorant of religion 
and of every thing that relates to it. Such were many of the Hea¬ 
thens. Their thoughts were all fixed upon other things; upon repu¬ 
tation and glory, upon wealth and power, upon luxury and pleasure, 
upon business or learning. They thought, and they had reason to 
think, that the religion of their country was fable and forgery, a heap 
of inconsistent lies; which inclined them to suppose that other reli¬ 
gions were no better. Hence it came to pass, that when the apostles 
preached the Gospel, and wrought miracles in confirmation of a 
doctrine every way worthy of God, many Gentiles knew little or 
nothing of it, and would not take the least pains to inform them¬ 
selves about it. This appears plainly from ancient history.’* 

I think it by no means unreasonable to suppose, that the heathen 
public, especially that part which is made up of men of rank and 
education, were divided into two classes; those who despised Chris¬ 
tianity beforehand, and those who received it. In correspondency 
with which division of character, the writers of that age would also 
be of two classes; those who were silent about Christianity, and 
those who were Christians. ‘ A good man, who attended sufficiently 
to the Christian affairs, would become a Christian; after which his 
testimony ceased to be Pagan, and became Christian.’t 

I must also add, that I think it sufficiently proved, that the notion 
of magic was resorted to by the Heathen advei'saries of Christianity, 
in like manner as that of diabolical agency had before been by the 
Jews. Justin Martyr alleges this as his reason for arguing from 
prophecy, rather than from miracles. Origen imputes this evasion 
to Celsus; Jerome to Porphyry; and Lactantius to the Heathens in 
general. The several passages, which contain these testimonies, 
will be produced in the next chapter. It being difficult, however, 
to ascertain in what degree this notion prevailed, especially amongst 
the sjiperior ranks of the Heathen communities, another, and I think 
an adequate, cause has been assigned for their infidelity. It is prob- 
.able, that in many cases the two causes would operate together. 


* Jortin’s Disc, on the Christ. Rel. p. CC. ed. 4th. 
t Hartley’s Obs. p. 119. 



241 


Evidences of Christianity, 


CHAP. V. 

That the Christian Miracles are not recited, or appealed to, hy early 
^^emseZves, so fully or frequently as might ha^ 


I SHALL consider this objection, first, as it applies to the letters of 
the apostles, preserved in the New Testament; and secondly, as it 
applies to the remaining writings of other early Christians. 

The epistles of the apostles are either hortatory or argumentative, 
bo tar as Uiey were occupied in delivering lessons of duty, rules of 
public order, admonitions against certain prevailing corruptions, 
against vice, or any particular species of it, or in fortifying and en¬ 
couraging the constancy of the disciples under the trials to which 
they were exposed, there appears to be no place or occasion for 
more of these references than we actually find. 

So far as the epistles are argumentative, the nature of the argu- 
rnent which they handle accounts for the infrequency of these allu¬ 
sions. These epistles were not written to prove the truth of Chris¬ 
tianity. The subject under consideration was not that which the 
miracles decided, the reality of our Lord’s mission ; but it was that 
which the miracles did not decide, the nature of his person or 
power, the design of his advent, its effects, and of those effects the 
value, kind, and extent. Still I maintain, that miraculous evidence 
lies at the bottom of the argument. For nothing could be so pre¬ 
posterous as for the discipyes of Jesus to dispute amongst themselves, 
or with others, concerning nis office or character, unless they be¬ 
lieved that he had shown, by supernatural proofs, that there was 
something extraordinary in both. Miraculous evidence, therefore, 
forming not the texture of these arguments, but the ground and 
substratum, if it be occasionally discerned, if it be incidentally ap¬ 
pealed to, it is exactly so much as ought to take place, supposing 
the history to be true. 

As a farther answer to the objection, that the apostolic epistles do 
not contain so frequent, or such direct and circumstantial recitals 
of miracles as might be expected, I would add, that the apostolic 
epistles resemble in this respect the apostolic speeches; which speeches 
are given by a writer who distinctly records numerous miracles 
wrought by these apostles themselves, and by the Founder of the 
institution in their presence; that it is unwarrantable to contend, 
that the omission, or infrequency, of such recitals in the speeches of 
the apostles, negatives the existence of the miracles, when the 
speeches are given in immediate conjunction with the history of 
those miracles: and that a conclusion which cannot be inferred 
from the speeches, without contradicting the whole tenor of the 
book which contains them, cannot be inferred from letters, which, 
in this respect, are similar only to the speeches. 

To prove the similitude which we allege, it may be remarked, 
that although in Saint Luke’s Gospel the apostle Peter is repre¬ 
sented to have been present at many decisive miracles wrought by 
Christ; and although the second part of the same history ascribes 


242 


Paley's View of the 


other decisive miracles to Peter himself, particularly the cure of the 
lame man at the gate of the temple, (Acts iii. 1.) the death of Ana¬ 
nias and Sapphira, (Acts v. 1.) the cure of ^neas, (Acts ix. 34.) the 
resurrection of Dorcas; (Acts ix. 40.) yet out of six speeches of Pe¬ 
ter, preserved in the Acts, I know but two in which reference is 
made to the miracles wrought by Christ, and only one in which he 
refers to miraculous powers possessed by himself In his speech 
upon the day of Pentecost, Peter addressed his audience with 
great solemnity, thus: ‘Ye men of Israel, hear these words: 
Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by mi¬ 
racles, and wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the 
midst of you, as ye yourselves also know,’* &c. In his speech 
upon the conversion of Cornelius, he delivers his testimony to the 
miracles performed by Christ, in these words: ‘We are witnesses 
of all things which he did, both in the land of the Jews, and in Je¬ 
rusalem.’! But in this latter speech, no allusion appears to the 
miracles wrought by himself, notwithstanding that the miracles 
above enumerated all preceded the time in which it was delivered. 
In his speech upon the election of Matthias,! no distinct reference is 
made to any of the miracles of Christ’s history, except his resurrec¬ 
tion. The same also may be observed of his speech upon the cure 
of the lame man at the gate of the temple :$ the same in his speech 
before the Sanhedrim ;1| the same in his second apology in the pres¬ 
ence of that assembly. Stephen’s long speech contains no reference 
whatever to miracles, though it be expressly related of him, in the 
book which preserves the speech, and almost immediately before 
the speech, ‘ that he did great wonders and miracles among the 
people.’IT Again, although miracles be expressly attributed to Saint 
Paul iri the Acts of the Apostles, first generally, as at Iconium, 
(Acts xiv. 3.) during the whole tour through the Upper Asia, (xiv. 
27. XV. 12.) at Ephesus: (xix. 11, 12.) secondly, in specific instances, 
as the blindness of Elymas at Paphos,** the cure of the cripple at 
Lystra,tt of the Pythoness at Philippi,!! the miraculous liberation 
from prison in the same city,§$ the restoration of Eutychus,lll| the 
predictions of his shipwreck,1Fir the viper at Melita,*** the cure of 
Publius’s father,!!! at all which miracles, except the first two, the 
historian himself was present: notwithstanding, I say, this positive 
ascription of miracles to Saint Paul, yet in the speeches delivered 
by him, and given as delivered by him, in the same book in which 
the miracles are related, and the miraculous powers asserted, 
the appeals to his own miracles, or indeed to any miracles at all, 
are rare and incidental. In his speech at Antioch in Pisidia,!!! 
there is no allusion but to the resurrection. In his discourse at 
Miletus,$$$ none to any miracle; none in his speech before Fe¬ 
lix ,i||{|| none in his speech before Festus except to Christ’s 
resurrection, and his own conversion. 


* Acts ii. 22. 
II iv. 8. 

!! xvi. 16. 

*** xxviii. 6. 
null xxiv. 10. 


t X. 39. 

IT vi. 8. 

§§ xvi. 26. 
ttt xxviii. 8. 
irW XXV. 8. 


! i. 15. 

** xiii. 11. 
nil XX. 10. 
!!! xiii. 16. 


§ iii. 12. 
!! xiv. 8. 
W xxvii. 1 
§§§ XX. 17. 




Evidences of Christianity. 243 

Agreeably hereunto, m thirteen letters ascribed to Saint Paul, we 
have incessant references to Christ’s resurrection, frequent refer¬ 
ences to his own conversion, three indubitable references to the 
miracles which he wrought four other references to the same, 
less direct, yet highly probable ;t but more copious or circum- 
stantm recitals we have not. The consent, therefore, b^ween 
speeches and letters, is in this respect sufficiently exact: 
and the reason in both is the same; namely, that the miraculous 
history was all along presupposed, and that the question, which oc¬ 
cupied the speaker’s and the writer’s thoughts, was this: whether, 
allowing the history of Jesus to be true, he was, upon the strength 
of It, to be received as the promised Messiah; and, if he was, what 
were the consequences, what was the object and benefit of his 
mission ? 

The general observation which has been made upon the apostolic 
writings, namely, that the subject of which they treated, did not 
lead them to any direct recital of the Christian history, belongs also 
to the writings of the apostolic fathers. The epistle of Barnabas is, 
m its subject and general composition, much like the epistle to the 
Hebrews; an allegorical application of divers passages of the Jew¬ 
ish history, of their law and ritual, to those parts of the Christian 
dispensation in which the author perceived a resemblance. The 
epistle of Clement was written for the sole purpose of quieting cer¬ 
tain dissensions that had arisen amongst the members of the church 
of Corinth, and of reviving in their minds that temper and spirit of 
W’hich their predecessors in the Gospel had left them an example. 
The work of Hermas is a vision: quotes neither the Old Testament 
nor the New; and merely falls now and then into the language, 
and the mode of speech, which the author had read in our Gospels. 
The epistles of Polycarp and Ignatius had for their principal object 
the order and discipline of the churches which they addressed. 
Yet, under all these circumstances of disadvantage, the great points 
of the Christian history are fully recognized. This hath been 
shown in its proper place.t 

There is, hovyever, another class of writers, to whom the answer 
above given, viz. the unsuitableness of any such appeals or refer¬ 
ences as the objection demands, to the subjects of which the writ¬ 
ings treated, does not apply ; and that is, the class of ancient apolo¬ 
gists, whose declared design it was to defend Christianity, and to 
give the reasons of their adherence to it. It is necessary, therefore, 
to inquire how the matter of the objection stands in these. 

The most ancient apologist, of whose works we have the smallest 
knowledge, is Quadratus. Quadratus lived about seventy years 
after the ascension, and presented his apology to the emperor 
Adrian. From a passage of this work, preserved in Eusebius, it 
appears that the author did directly and formally appeal to the 
miracles of Christ, and in terms as express and confident as we 

* Gal. iii. 5. Rom. xv. 18, 19. 2 Cor. xii. 12. 

t 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5. Eph. iii. 7. Gal. ii. 8. 1 Thess. i. 5. 

J See page 71, &c.c. 



244 Paley's View of the 

could desire. The passage (which has been once already stated) 
is as follows:—‘ The works of our Saviour were always conspicuous, 
for they were real; both they that were healed, and they that were 
raised from the dead, were seen, not only when they were healed, 
or raised, but for a long time afterward: not only whilst he dwelled 
on this earth, but also after his departure, and for a good while after 
it; insomuch as that some of them have reached to our times.’* 
Nothing can be more rational or satisfactory than this. 

Justin Martyr, the next of the Christian apologists whose work is 
not lost, and who followed Quadratus at the distance of about thirty 
years, has touched upon passages of Christ’s history in so many 
places, that a tolerably complete account of Christ’s life might be 
collected out of his works. In the following quotation, he asserts 
the performance of miracles by Christ in words as strong and posi¬ 
tive as the language possesses: ‘ Christ healed those who from their 
birth were blind, and deaf, and lame; causing by his word, one to 
eap, another to hear, and a third to see: and having raised the 
dead, and caused them to live, he, by his works, excited attention, 
and induced the men of that age to know him. Who, however, 
seeing these things done, said that it was a magical appearance, and 
dared to call him a magician, and a deceiver of the people.’t 

In his first apology,t Justin expressly assigns the reason for his 
having recourse to the argument from prophecy, rather than alleging 
the miracles of the Christian history: which reason was, that the 
persons with whom he contended would ascribe these miracles to 
magic; ‘ Lest any of our opponents should say. What hinders, but 
that he who is called Christ by us, being a man sprung from men, 
performed the miracles which we attribute to him, by magical art V 
The suggestion of this reason meets, as I apprehend, the very point 
of the present objection; more especially when we find Justin fol¬ 
lowed in it by other writers of that age. Irenseus, who came about 
forty years after him, notices the same evasion in the adversaries of 
Christianity, and replies to it by the same argument: ‘ But if they 
shall say, that the Lord performed these things by an illusory ap¬ 
pearance ((pavTacnu)Sois')j leading these objectors to the prophecies, 
we will show from them, that all things were thus predicted con¬ 
cerning him, and strictly came to pass.’$ Lactantius, who lived a 
century lower, delivers the same sentiment, upon the same occasion; 
‘ He performed miracles;—we might have supposed him to have 
been a magician, as ye say, and as the Jews then supposed, if all the 
prophets had not with one spirit foretold that Christ should perform 
hese very things.’!! 

But to return to the Christian apologists in their order. Tertul- 
lian:—‘That person whom the Jews had vainly imagined, from the 
meanness of his appearance, to be a mere man, they afterward, in 
consequence of the power he exerted, considered as a magician, 
when he, w'ith one word, ejected devils out of the bodies of men, 
gave sight to the blind, cleansed the leprous, strengthened the nerves 

* Euseb. Hist. 1. iv. c. 3. t Just. Dial, p 258. ed. Thirlby. 

J Apoiog. prim. p. 48. ed. Tliirlby. § Iren. 1. ii. c. 57. !1 Lactant. v. 3. 



Evidences of Christianity. 245 

of those that had the palsy, and, lastly, with one command, restored 
the dead to life; when he, I say, made the very elements obey him, 

to'Khe WorT^f'G<S^i^^'^ demonstrating himself 


Next in the catalogue of professed apologists we may place Ori- 
gen, who, it is well known, published a formal defence of Chris¬ 
tianity, in answer to Celsus, a Heathen, who had written a discourse 
against it. I know no expressions, by which a plainer or more posi¬ 
tive appeal to the Christian miracles can be made, than the expres- 
sions used by Origen; ‘ Undoubtedly we do think him to be the 
Christ, and the Son of God, because he healed the lame and the 
blind; and we are the more confirmed in this persuasion, by what 
IS wntten in the prophecies: “Then shall the eyes of the blind be 
opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear, and the lame man shall 
leap as a hart.” But that he also raised the dead; and that it is not 
a fiction of those who wrote the Gospels, is evident from hence, 
that, if it had been a fiction, there would have been many recorded 
to be raised up, and such as had been a long time in their graves. 
But, it not being a fiction, few have been recorded: for instance, 
the daughter of the^ ruler of a synagogue, of whom I do not know 
why he said. She is not dead but sleepeth, expressing something 
peculiar to her, not common to all dead persons; and the only son 
of a widow, on whom he had compassion, and raised him to life, 
after he had bid the bearers of the corpse to stop; and the third, 
Lazarus, who had been buried four days.’ This is positively to 
assert the miracles of Christ, and it is also to comment upon them, 
and that with a considerable degree of accuracy and candor. 

In another passage of the same author, we meet with the old solu¬ 
tion of inagic applied to the miracles of Christ by the adversaries of 
the religion. ‘Celsus,’sailh Origen, ‘ well knowing what great works 
may be alleged to have been done by Jesus, pretends to grant that 
the things related of him are true; such as healing diseases, raising 
the dead, feeding multitudes with a few loaves, of which large frag¬ 
ments were left.’t And then Celsus gives, it seems, an answer to 
these proofs of our Lord’s mission, which, as Origen understood it, 
resolved the phenomena into magic; for Origen begins his reply by 
observing, ‘ You see that Celsus in a manner allows that there is 
such a thing as magic.’t 

It appears also from the testimony of St. Jerome, that Porphyry, 
the most learned and able of the Heathen writers against Chris¬ 
tianity, resorted to the same solution: ‘ Unless,’ says he, speaking to 
Vigilantius, ‘ according to the manner of the Gentiles and the pro¬ 
fane, of Porphyry and Eunomius, you pretend that these are the 
tricks of demons.’$ 

This magic, these demons, this illusory appearance, this compari- 


* Tertull. Apolog. p. 20; ed. Priorii, Par. 1675. 
t Orijr. Cont. Cels. 1 ii. sect. 48 

t Lardner’s Jewish and Heath. Test. vol. ii. p. 294. ed. 4to. 
§ Jerome, cont. Vigil. 


V2 




246 Paley^s View of the 

son with the tricks of jugglers, by which many of that age accounted 
so easily for the Christian miracles, and which answ^ers the advo¬ 
cates of Christianity often thought it necessary to refute by argu¬ 
ments draw'n from other topics, and particularly from prophecy (to 
which, it seems, these solutions did not apply), we now perceive to 
be gross subterfhges. That such reasons were ever seriously urged, 
and seriously received, is only a proof, what a gloss and varnish 
fashion can give to any opinion. 

It appears, therefore, that the miracles of Christ, understood as we 
understand them, in their literal and historical sense, were posi¬ 
tively and precisely asserted and appealed to by the apologists for 
Christianity; which answers the allegation of the objection. 

I am ready, however, to admit, that the ancient Christian advo¬ 
cates did not insist upon the miracles in argument, so frequently as 
1 should have done. It was their lot to contend with notions of 
magical agency, against which the mere production of the facts was 
not sufficient for the convincing of their adversaries: I do not know 
whether they themselves thought it quite decisive of the contro¬ 
versy. But since it is proved, I conceive with certainty, that the 
sparingness with which they appealed to miracles, was owing nei¬ 
ther to their ignorance, nor their doubt of the facts, it is, at any rate, 
an objection, not to the truth of the history, but to the judgment of 
its defenders. 

CHAP. VI. 

Want of universality in the knowledge and reception of Christianity 
and of greater clearness in the evidence. 

Of a,revelation which really came from God, the proof, it has 
been said, would in all ages be so public and manifest, that no part 
of the human species would remain ignorant of it, no understanding 
could fail of being convinced by it. 

The advocates of Christianity do not pretend that the evidence 
of their religion possesses these qualities. They do not deny that 
we can conceive it to be within the compass of divine power, to 
have communicated to the world a higher degree of assurance, and 
•to have given to his communication a stronger and more extensive 
influence. For any thing we are able to discern, God covM have so 
formed men, as to have perceived the truths of religion intuitively; 
or to have carried on a communication with the other world, whilst 
they lived in this; or to have seen the individuals of the species, 
instead of dying, pass to heaven by a sensible translation. He could 
have presented a separate miracle to each man’s senses. He could 
have established a standing miracle. He could have caused mira¬ 
cles to be wrought in every different age and country. These, and 
many more methods, which we may imagine, if we once give loose 
to our imaginations, are, so far as we can judge, all practicable. 

The question, therefore, is, not whether Christianity possesses the 
highest possible degree of evidence, but whether the not having 
more evidence be a sufficient reason for rejecting that which we 
have. 


Evidences of Christianity. 247 

Now there appears to be no fairer method of judging, concerning 
any dispensation which is alleged to come from God, when a quos- 
tion is made w hether such a dispensation could come from God or 
not, than by comparing it with other things which are acknowledged 
to proceed from the same counsel, and to be produced by the same 
agency. If the dispensation in question labor under no defects but 
what apparently belong to other dispensations, these seeming de¬ 
lects do not justify us in setting aside the proofs which are offered 
ot its authenticity, if they be otherwise entitled to credit. 

Throughout that order then of nature, of which God is the author, 
what we find is a system of beneficence; we are seldom or ever able 
to make out a system of optimism. I mean, that there are few cases 
in which, if we permit ourselves to range in possibilities, we cannot 
suppose something more perfect, and more unobjectionable, than 
what we see. The rain which descends from heaven, is confessedly 
arnon^t the contrivances of the Creator, for the sustentation of the 
animals and vegetables which subsist upon the surface of the earth. 
Yet how partially and irregularly is it supplied ! How much of it 
tails upon the sea, where it can be of no use! how often is it wanted 
where it would be of the greatest! What tracts of continent are 
rendered deserts by the scarcity of it! Or, not to speak of extreme 
cases, how much, sometimes, do inhaliited countries suffer by its 
deficiency or delay!—We could imagine, if to imagine were our 
business, the matter to be otherwise legulated. We could imagine 
showers to fall, just where and when they would do good; always 
seasonable, eve^where sufficient; so distributed as not to leave a 
field upon the face of the globe scorched by drought, or even a 
plant withering for the lack of moisture. Yet, does the difference 
between the real case and the imagined case, or the seeming infe- 
riority of the one to the other, authorize us to say, that the present 
disposition of the atmosphere is not amongst the productions or the 
designs of the Deity ? Does it check the inference which we draw 
from the confessed beneficence of the provision ? or does it make 
us cease to admire the contrivance ?—The observation, which we 
have exemplified in the single instance of the rain of heaven, may 
be repeated concerning most of the phenomena of nature; and the 
true conclusion to which it leads is this: that to inquire what the 
Deity might have done, could have done, or, as we even sometimes 
presume to speak, ought to have done, or, in hypothetical cases, 
would have done, and to build any propositions upon such inquiries 
against evidence of fa,cts, is wholly unwarrantable. It is a mode 
of reasoning which will not do in natural history, which will not 
do in natural religion, which cannot therefore be applied with 
safety to revelation. It may have some foundation, in certain 
speculative d, prion ideas of the divine attributes ; but it has none 
in experience, or in analogy. The general character of the works 
of nature is, on the one hand, goodness both in design and effect; 
and, on the other hand, a liability to difficulty, and to objections, if 
such objections be allowed, by reason of seeming incompleteness 
or uncertainty in attaining their end. Christianity participat€fs of 


248 


Paley^s View of the 

this character. The true similitude between nature and revelation 
ccmsists in this; that they each bear strong marks of their original ; 
that they each also bear appearances of irregularity and defect. A 
system of strict optimism may nevertheless be the real system in 
both cases. But what I contend is, that the proof is hiddlen from 
us; that we ought not to expect to perceive ihal in revelation, which 
we hardly perceive in any thing; that beneficence, of which we can 
judge, ought to satisfy us; that optimism, of which we cannot judge, 
ought not to be sought after. We can judge of beneficence, because it 
depends upon effects which we experience, and upon the relation 
between the means which we see acting and the ends which we 
see produced. We cannot judge of optimism, because it necessarily 
implies a comparison of that which is tried, with that which is not 
tried ; of consequences which we see, with others which we im¬ 
agine, and concerning many of which, it is more than probable we 
know nothing; concerning some, that we have no notion. 

If Christianity be compared with the state and progress of natural 
reli^on, the argument of the objector will gain nothing by the com¬ 
parison. I remember hearing an unbeliever say, that, if God had 
given a revelation, he would have written it in the skies. Are the 
truths of natural religion written in the skies, or in a language 
which everv one reads ? or is this the case with the most useful 
arts, or the most necessary sciences of human life? An Otaheitean 
or an Esquimaux knows nothing of Christianity; does he know 
more of the principles of deism or morality ? which, notwithstand¬ 
ing his ignorance, are neither untrue, nor unimportant, nor uncer¬ 
tain. The existence of the Deity is left to be collected from obser¬ 
vations, which every man does not make, which every man, per¬ 
haps, is not capable of making. Can it be argued, that God does 
not exist, because, if he did, he would let us see him, or discover 
himself to mankind by proofs (such as, we may think, the nature of 
the subject merited), which no inadvertency could miss, no preju¬ 
dice withstand ? 

If Christianity be regarded as a providential instrument for the 
melioration of mankind, its progress and diffusion resemble that of 
other causes by which human life is improved. The diversity is 
not greater, nor the advance more slow, in religion, than we find 
it to be in learning, liberty, government, laws. The Deity hath 
not touched the order of nature in vain. The Jew'ish religion pro¬ 
duced great and permanent effects; the Christian religion hath 
done the same. It hath disposed the world to amendment. It hath 
put things in a train. It is by no means improbable, that it may be¬ 
come universal: and that the world may continue in that stage so 
long as that the duration of its reign may bear a vast pi'oportion to 
the time of its partial influence. 

When we argue concerning Christianity, that it must necessarily 
be true, because it is beneficial, we go, perhaps, too far on one side : 
and we certainly go too far on the other, when we conclude that it 
must be false, because it is not so efficacious as we could have sup¬ 
posed. The question of its truth is to be tried upon its proper evi- 


Evidences of Christianity. 249 

dence, without deferring much to this sort of argument, on either 
side. ‘ The evidence,’ as Bishop Butler hath rightly observed, ‘ de¬ 
pends upon the judgment we form of human conduct, under given 
circumstances, of which it may be presumed that we know some¬ 
thing; the objection stands upon the supposed conduct of the Deity, 
under relations with which we are not acquainted.’ 

What would be the real effect of that overpowering evidence 
which our adversaries require in a revelation, it is difficult to fore¬ 
tell ; at least, we must speak of it as of a dispensation of which we 
have no experience. Some consequences however would, it is 
probable, attend this economy, which do not seem to befit a revela¬ 
tion that proceeded from God. One is, that irresistible proof would 
restrain the voluntary povvers too much; would not answer the 
purpose of trial and probation; would call for no exercise of can¬ 
dor, seriousness, humility, inquiry; no submission of passion, inter¬ 
ests, and prejudices, to moral evidence and to probable truth ; no 
habits of reflection; none of that previous desire to learn and to obey 
the will of God, which forms perhaps the test of the virtuous prin¬ 
ciple, and which induces men to attend, with care and reverence, 
to every credible intimation of that will, and to resign present ad¬ 
vantages and present pleasures to every reasonable expectation of 
propitiating his favor. ‘ Men’s moral probation may be, whether 
they will take due care to inform themselves by impartial consider¬ 
ation ; and, afterward, whether they will act as the case requires^ 
upon the evidence which they have. And this we find by exp€M 
rience, is often our probation in our temporal capacity.’* 

II. 'These rnodes of communication would leave no place for the 
admission of internal evidence; which ought, perhaps, to bear a coii- 
siderable part in the proof of every revelation, because it is a spe¬ 
cies of evidence, which applies itself to the knowledge, love, and 
practice of virtue, and which operates in proportion to the degree 
of those qualities which it finds in the person whom it addresses. 
Men of good dispositions, amongst Christians, are greatly affected 
by the impression which the Scriptures themselves make upon their 
minds. Their conviction is much strengthened by these impres¬ 
sions. And this perhaps was intended to be one effect to be pro¬ 
duced by the religion. It is likewise true, to whatever cause wd 
ascribe it (for I am not in this work at liberty to introduce the 
Christian doctrine of grace or assistance, or the Christian promise 
that, ‘ if any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, 
W'hether it be of God,’t)—it is true, I say, that they who sincerely 
act, or sincerely endeavor to act, according to what they believe, 
that is, according to the just result of the probabilities, or, if you 
please, the possibilities of natural and revealed religion, which they 
themselves perceive, and according to a rational estimate of conse¬ 
quences, and, above all, according to the just effect of those princi¬ 
ples of gratitude and devotion, which even the view of nature 
generates in a well-ordered mind, seldom fail of proceeding farther. 
This also may have been exactly what was designed. 


* Butler’s Analogy, part ii. c. vi. 


t John vii. 17 



250 


Paley's Vieio of the 

Whereas, may it not be said that irresistible evidence would con¬ 
found all characters and all dispositions? would subvert, rather than 
promote, the true purpose of the divine counsels; which is, not to 
produce obedience by a force little short of mechanical constraint 
(which obedience would be regularity, not virtue, and would hardly 
perhaps differ from that which inanimate bodies pay to the laws 
impressed upon their nature), but to treat moral agents agreeably to 
what they are; which is done, when light and motives are of such 
kinds, and are imparted in such measures, that the influence of them 
depends upon the recipients themselves? ‘It is not meet to govern 
rational free agents in via by sight and sense. It would be no trial 
or thanks to the most sensual wretch to forbear sinning, if heaven 
and hell w^ere open to his sight. That spiritual vision and fruition is 
our state in pairid’ (Baxter’s Reasons, p. 357.)—There may be truth 
in this thought, though roughly expressed. Few things are more 
improbable than that we (the human species) should be the highest 
order of beings in the universe: that animated nature should ascend 
from the lowest reptile to us, and all at once stop there. If there be 
classes above us of rational intelligences, clearer manifestations may 
belong to them. This may be one of the distinctions. And it may 
be one, to which we ourselves hereafter shall attain. 

III. But may it not also be asked, whether the perfect display of 
a future state of existence would be compatible with the activity of 
civil life, and with the success of human affairs ? I can easily con¬ 
ceive that this impression may be overdone; that it may so seize 
and fill the thoughts, as to leave no place for the cares and offices 
of men’s several stations, no anxiety for worldly prosperity, or even 
for a worldly provision, and, W consequence, no sufficient stimulus 
to secular industry. Of the first Christians we read, ‘ that all that 
believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their 
possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man 
had need ; and, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and 
breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with glad¬ 
ness and singleness of heart.’* This was extremely natural, and just 
what might be expected from miraculous evidence coming with full 
force upon the senses of mankind: but I much doubt whether, if 
this state of mind had been universal, or long-continued, the busi¬ 
ness of the world could have gone on. The necessary arts of social 
life would have been little cultivated. The plow and the loom 
would have stood still. Agriculture, manufactures, trade and navi¬ 
gation, would not, I think, have flourished, if they could have been 
exercised at all. Men would have addicted themselves to contem¬ 
plative and ascetic lives, instead of lives of business and useful 
industry. We observe that Saint Paul found it necessary, frequently 
to recall his converts to the ordinary labors and domestic duties of 
their condition ; and to give them, in his own example, a lesson of 
contented application to their worldly employments. 

By the manner in which the religion is now proposed, a great por 


* Acts ii. 44—46. 



Evidences of Christianity. 251 

tion of the human species is enabled, and of these multitudes of 
every generation are induced, to seek and to effectuate their salva- 
tion, through the medium of Christianity, without interruption of the 
prosperity or of the regular course of human affairs. 


CHAP. VII. 


The supposed Effects of Christianity. 

x. a religion, which, under every form in which it is taught 

holds forth the final reward of virtue and punishment of vice, and’ 
proposes those distinctions of virtue and vice, which the wisest and 
m(»t cultivated part of mankind confess to be just, should not be 
believed, is very possible; but that, so far as it is believed, it should 
not praduce any good, but rather a bad effect upon public happi¬ 
ness, IS a proposition which it requires very strong evidence to ren¬ 
der credible. Yet many have been found to contend for this para- 
dox, and very confident appeals have been made to history, and to 
observation, for the truth of it. 

In the conclusions, however, which these writers draw from what 
S?ve?*^ experience, two sources, I think, of mistake, may be per- 

One is, that they look for the influence of religion in the wrong 

plBC0. 


The other, that they charge Christianity with many consequences, 
for which It IS not responsible. 

I. The influence of religion is not to be sought for in the councils 
of princes, in the debates or resolutions of popular assemblies, in the 
conduct of governments towards their subjects, or of states and 
sovereigns towards one another; of conquerors at the head of their 
armies, or of parties intriguing for power at home (topics which 
alone almost occupy the attention, and fill the pages of history); but 
™ j perceived, if perceived at all, in the silent course of private 
and domestic life. Nay more; even there its influence may not be 
very obvious to observation. If it check, in some degree, personal 
dissoluteness, if it beget a general probity in the transaction of busi¬ 
ness, if It produce soft and humane manners in the mass of the com¬ 
munity, and occasional exertions of laborious and expensive benev¬ 
olence in a few individuals, it is all the effect which can offer itself 
to external notice. The kingdom of heaven is within us. That 
which is the substance of the religion, its hopes and consolations, its 
intermixture with the thoughts by day and by night, the devotion 
of the heart, the control of appetite, the steady direction of the will 
to the commands of God, is necessarily invisible. Yet upon these 
depend the virtue and happiness of millions. This cause renders 
the representations of history, w ith respect to religion, defective and 
fellacious, in a greater degree than they are upon any other subject. 
Religion operates most upon those of whom history knows the least; 
upon fathers and mothers in their families, upon men-servants and 
maid-servants, upon the orderly tradesman, the quiet villager, the 
manufacturer at his loom, the husbandman in his fields. Amongst 


252 


Paley’s View of the 

such, its influence collectively may be of inestimable value, yet its 
effects, in the mean time, little upon those who figure upon the 
stage of the world. They may know nothing of it; they may be¬ 
lieve nothing of it; they may be actuated by motives more impetu¬ 
ous than those which religion is able to excite. It cannot, there¬ 
fore, be thought strange, that this influence should elude the grasp 
and touch of public history: for, what is public history, but a regis¬ 
ter of the successes and disappointments, the vices, the follies, and 
the quarrels, of those who engage in contentions for power? 

I will add, that much of this influence may be felt in times of 
public distress, and little of it in times of public wealth and secu¬ 
rity. This also increases the uncertainty of any opinions that we 
draw’ from historical representations. The influence of Christianity 
is commensurate with no effects which history states. We do not 
pretend that it has any such necessary and irresistible power over 
the affairs of nations, as to surmount the force of other causes. 

The Christian religion also acts upon public usages and institu¬ 
tions, by an operation which is only secondary and indirect. Chris¬ 
tianity IS not a code of civil law. It can only reach public institu¬ 
tions through private character. Now its influence upon private 
character may be considerable, yet many public usages and institu¬ 
tions repugnant to its principles may remain. To get rid of these, 
the reigning part of the community must act, and act together. But 
it may be long before the persons w’ho compose this body be suffi¬ 
ciently touched with the Christian character, to join in the suppres¬ 
sion of practices, to which they and the public have been reconciled 
by causes which will reconcile the human mind to any thing, by 
habit and interest. Nevertheless, the effects of Christianity, even 
in this view, have been important. It has mitigated the conduct 
of war, and the treatment of captives. It has softened the adminis¬ 
tration of despotic, or of nominally despotic governments. It haa 
abolished polygamy. It has restrained the licentiousness of divorces. 
It has put an end to the exposure of children, and the immolation 
of slaves. It has suppressed the combats of gladiators,* and the 
impurities of religious rites. It has banished, if not unnatural vices, 
at least the toleration of them. It has greatly meliorated the con¬ 
dition of the laborious part, that is to say, of the mass of every com¬ 
munity, by procuring for them a day of weekly rest. In all coun¬ 
tries in w’hich it is professed, it has produced numerous establishments 
for the relief of sickness and poverty; and, in some, a regular and 
general provision by law. It has triumphed over the slavery estab¬ 
lished in'the Roman empire: it is contending, and, I trust, wall one 
day prevail, against the worse slavery of the West Indies. 

A Christian writer,t so early as in the second century, has testi- 


* Lipsiiis affirms (Sat.b. i c. 12 ), that the gladiatorial shows sometimes 
cost Europe twenty or thirty thousand lives in a month; and that not 
only the men, but even the women of all ranks w'ere passionately fond 
of these shows. See Bishop Porteus’s Sermon XIII. 
t Bardesanes, ap. Euseb. Prep. Evang. vi. 10. 



Evidences of Christianity. 253 

fied the resistance which Christianity made to wicked and licen¬ 
tious practices, though established by law and by public usage:_ 

‘Neither in Parlhia, do the Christians, though Parthians, use polyg- 
amy ^ nor in Persia, thoueh Persians, do they marry their own 
daughters; nor among the Bactri, or Galli, do they violate the sane- 
tity of marriage; nor, wherever they are, do they suffer themselves 
to be overcome by ill-constituted laws and manners.’ 

Socrates did not destroy the idolatry of Athens, or produce the 
slightest revolution in the manners of his country. 

But the argument to which 1 recur, is, that the benefit of reli 
gion, being felt chiefly in the obscurity of private stations, necessa¬ 
rily escapes the observation of history. From the first general noti¬ 
fication of Christianity to the present day, there have been in every 
age many millions, whose names were never heard of, made better 
by it, not only in their conduct, but in their disposition; and happier, 
not so much in their external circumstances, as in that which is 
inter prtBcordia, in that which alone deserves the name of happiness, 
the tranquillity and consolation of their thoughts. It has been, 
since its commencement, the author of happiness and virtue to mil¬ 
lions and millions of the human race. Who is there that would not 
wish his son to be a Christian? 

Christianity also, in every country in which it is professed, hath 
obtained a sensible, although not a complete influence, upon the 
public judgment of morals. And this is very important. For with¬ 
out the occasional correction which public opinion receives, by re¬ 
ferring to some fixed standard of morality, no man can foretell into 
what extravagances it might wander. Assassination might become 
as honorable as duelling: unnatural crimes be accounted as venial 
as fornication is wont to be accounted. In this way it is possible, 
that many may be kept in order by Christianity, who are not them¬ 
selves Christians. They may be guided by the rectitude which 
it communicates to public opinion. Their consciences may suggest 
their duty truly, and they may ascribe these suggestions to a moral 
^ense, or to the native capacity of the human intellect, when in fact 
they are nothing more than the public opinion, reflected from their 
own minds ; and opinion, in a considerable degree, modified by the 
lessons of Christianity. ‘ Certain it is, and this is a great deal to 
say, that the generality, even of the meanest and most vulgar and 
ignorant people, have truer and worthier notions of God, more just 
and right apprehensions concerning his attributes and perfections, 
a deeper sense of the diflhrence of good and evil, a greater regard 
to moral obligations, and to the plain and most necessary duties of 
life, and a more firm and universal expectation of a future state of 
rewards and punishments, than, in any Heathen country, any con¬ 
siderable number of men were found to have had.’* 

After all, the value of Christianity is not to be appreciated by its 
temporal effecte. The object of revelation is to influence human 
conduct in this life; but what is gained to happiness by that in- 


* Clarke, Ev. Nat. Eel. p. 208. ed. v. 


W 



254 


Paley’s View of the 

fluence, can only be estimated by taking in the whole of human 
existence. Then, as hath already been observed, there may be 
also great consequences of Christianity, which do not belong to it 
as a revelation. The effects upon human salvation, of the mission, 
of the death, of the present, of the future agency of Christ, may be 
universal, though the religion be not universally known. 

Secondly, I assert that Christianity is charged with many conse¬ 
quences for which it is not responsible. I believe that religious 
motives have had no more to do in the formation of nine-tenths of 
the intolerant and persecuting laws, which in different countries 
have been established upon the subject of religion, than they have 
had to do in England with the making of the game-laws. These 
measures, although they have the Christian religion for their sub¬ 
ject, are resolvable into a principle which Christianity certainly 
did not plant (and which Christianity could not universally con¬ 
demn, because it is not universally wrong), which principle is no 
Other than this, that they who are in possession of power do what 
they can to keep it. Christianity is answerable for no part of the 
mischief which has been brought upor the world by persecution, 
except that which has arisen from conscientious persecutors. Now 
these perhaps have never been either numerous or powerful. Nor 
is it to Christianity that even their mistake can fairly be imputed. 
They have been misled by an error not properly Christian or reli¬ 
gious, but by an error in their moral philosophy. They pursued 
the particular, without adverting to the general consequence. Be¬ 
lieving certain articles of faith, or a certain mode of worship, to be 
highly conducive, or perhaps essential, to salvation, they thought 
themselves bound to bring all they could, by every means, into 
them. And this they thought, without considering what would be 
the effect of such a conclusion, when adopted amongst mankind as 
a general rule of conduct. Had there been in the New Testament, 
what there are in the Koran, precepts authorizing coercion in the 
propagation of the religion, and the use of violence towards unbe¬ 
lievers, the case would have been different. This distinction could 
not have been taken, nor this defence made. 

I apologize for no species nor degree of persecution, but I think 
that even the fact has been exaggerated. The slave-trade destroys 
more in a year, than the inquisition does in a hundred, or perhaps 
hath done since its foundation. 

If it be objected, as I apprehend it will be, that Christianity is 
chargeable with every mischief, of which it has been the occasion, 
though not the motive; I answer, that, if the malevolent passions 
be there, the world will never want occasions. The noxious ele¬ 
ment will always find a conductor. Any point will produce an 
explosion. Did the applauded intercommunity of the Pagan the- 
ology preserve the peace of the Roman w orld ? did it prevent op¬ 
pressions, proscriptions, massacres, devastations ? Was it bigotry 
that carried Alexander into the east, or brought Caesar into Gaul ? 
Are the nations of the world, into which Christianity hath not 
fijund its way, or from which it hath been banished, free from con- 


Evidences of Christianity. 255 

tentions ? Are their contentions less ruinous and sanguinary ? Is it 
owing to Christianity, or to the want of it, that the finest regions of 
the East, the countries inler quatuor maria, the peninsula of Greece, 
together with a great part of the Mediterranean coast, are at this 
day a desert ? or that the banks of the Nile, w hose constantly re¬ 
newed fertility is not to be impaired by neglect, or destroyed by the 
ravages of war, serve only for the scene of a ferocious anarchy, or 
the supply of unceasing hostilities ? Europe itself has known no re¬ 
ligious wars for some centuries, yet has hardly ever been without 
war. Are the calamities, which at this day afflict it, to be imputed 
to Christianity ? Hath Poland fallen by a Christian crusade ? Hath 
the overthrow in France of civil order and security, been effected 
by the votaries of our religion, or by the foes ? Amongst the awful 
lessons which the crimes and miseries of that country afford to man¬ 
kind, this is one ; that, in order to be a persecutor, it is not necessary 
to be a bigot; that in rage and cruelty, in mischief and destruction, 
fanaticism itself can be outdone by infidelity. 

Finally, If war, as it is now carried on between nations, produces 
less misery and ruin than formerly, we are indebted perhaps to 
Christianity for the change, more than to any other cause. Viewed 
tlierefbre even in its relation to this subject, it appears to have been 
of advantage to the world. It hath humanized the conduct of wars; 
it hath ceased to excite them. 

The differences of opinion, that have in all ages prevailed 
amongst Christians, fall very much within the alternative which 
has been stated. If we possessed the disposition which Christianity 
labors, above all other qualities, to inculcate, these differences 
would do little harm. If that disposition be wanting, other causes, 
even w-ere these absent, would continually rise up to call forth the 
malevolent passions into action. Differences of opinions, when ac¬ 
companied vyith mutual charity, which Christianity forbids them to 
violate, are for tlie most part innocent, and for some purposes use¬ 
ful. They promote inquiry, discussion, and knowledge. They 
help to keep up an attention to religious subjects, and a concern 
about them, which might be apt to die away in the calm and 
silence of universal agreement. I do not know that it is in any de¬ 
gree true, that the influence of religion is the greatest, where there 
are the fewest dissenters. 


CHAP. VHI. 

The Conclusion. 

In religion, as in every other subject of human reasoning, much 
depends upon the order in which we dispose our inquiries. A man 
who takes up a system of divinity with a previous opinion that either 
every part must be true or the whole false, approaches the discus¬ 
sion with great disadvantage. No other system, which is founded 
upon moral evidence, would bear to be treated in the same manner. 


256 


Paley's View of the 

Nevertheless, in a certain degree, we are all introduced to our reli 
gious studies, under this prejudication. And it cannot be avoided. 
The weakness of the human judgment in the early part of youth, 
yet its extreme susceptibility of impression, renders it necessary to 
furnish it with some opinions, and with some principles or other. Or 
indeed, without much express care, or much endeavor for this pur¬ 
pose, the tendency of the mind of man to assimilate itself to the 
habits of thinking and speaking which prevail around him, pro¬ 
duces the same effect. That indifferency and suspense, that waiting 
and equilibrium of the judgment, which some require in religious 
matters, and which some would wish to be aimed at in the conduct 
of education, are impossible to be preserved. They are not given 
to the condition of human life. 

It is a consequence of this institution that the doctrines of rejigion 
come to us before the proofs; and come to us with that mixture of 
explications and inferences from which no public creed is, or can 
be, free. And the elfect which too frequently follows, from Chris¬ 
tianity being presented to the understanding in this form, is, that 
when any articles, which appear as parts of it, contradict the appre¬ 
hension of the persons to whom it is proposed, men of rash and con¬ 
fident tempers hastily and indiscriminately reject the whole. But 
is this to do justice, either to themselves or to the religion ? The 
rational way of treating a subject of such acknowledged importance 
is to attend, in the first place, to the general and substantial truth of 
its principles, and to that alone. When we once feel a foundation; 
when we once perceive a ground of credibility in its history, we 
shall proceed with safety to inquire into the interpretation of its 
records, and into the doctrines which have been deduced from them. 
Nor will it either endanger our faith, or diminish or alter our mo¬ 
tives for obedience, if we should discover that these conclusions are 
formed with very different degrees of probability, and possess very 
different degrees of importance. 

This conduct of the understanding, dictated by every rule of right 
reasoning, will uphold personal Christianity, even in tnose countries 
in which it is established under forms the most liable to difficulty 
and objection. It will also have the farther eflhct of guarding us 
against the prejudices which are wont to arise in our minds to the 
disadvantage of religion, from observing the numerous controversies 
which are carried on amongst its professors, and likewise of inducing 
a spirit of lenity and moderation in our judgment, as well as in our 
treatment of those who stand, in such controversies, upon sides oppo¬ 
site to ours. What is clear in Christianity, we shall find to be suf¬ 
ficient, and to be infinitely valuable; what is dubious, unnecessary 
to be decided, or of very subordinate importance; and what is most 
obscure, will teach us to bear with the opinions which others may 
have formed upon the same subject. We shall say to those who the 
most widely dissent from us, what Augustin said to the worst here¬ 
tics of his age; ‘Illi in vos sajyiant, qui nesciunt, cum quo labore 
verum inveniatur, etquam difficile caveantur errores;—qui nesciunt, 
cum quanta difficultate sanetur oculus interioris hominis;—qui ne- 


Evidences of Christianity. 257 

sciunt, quibus suspiriis et gemitibus fiat ut ex quantulacunque parte 
possit intelligi Deus.’* 

A judgment, moreover, which is once pretty well satisfied of the 
general truth of the religion, will not only thus discriminate in its 
doctrines, but will possess sufficient strength to overcome the reluc¬ 
tance of the imagination to admit articles of faith which are attended 
with difficulty of apprehension, if such articles of faith appear to be 
truly parts of the revelation. It was to be expected beforehand, 
that what related to the economy, and to the persons, of the invisi¬ 
ble world, which revelation professes to do, and which, if true it 
actually does, should contain some points remote from our analo¬ 
gies, and from the comprehension of a mind which hath acquired 
all its ideas from sense and from experience. 

It hath been my care, in the preceding work, to preserve the sep¬ 
aration between evidences and doctrines as inviolable as I could; 
to remove from the primary question all considerations which have 
been unnecessarily joined wdth it; and to offer a defence to Chris¬ 
tianity, w'hich every Christian might read, without seeing the tenets 
in which he had been brought up attacked or decried: and it always 
afforded a satisfaction to my mind to observe that this was practica¬ 
ble ; that few or none of our many controversies with one another 
affect or relate to the proofs of our religion; that the rent never 
descends to the foundation. 

The truth of Christianity depends upon its leading facts, and upon 
them alone. ]\ow of these we have evidence which ought to satisfy 
us, at least until it appear that mankind have ever been deceived 
by the same. We have some uncontested and incontestable points, 
to which the history of the human species has nothing similar to 
offer. A Jewish peasant changed the religion of the world, and 
that, without force, without power, without support; without one 
natural source, or circumstance of attraction, influence, or success. 
Such a thing hath not happened in any other instance. The com¬ 
panions 01 this Person, after he himself had been put to death for 
his attempt, asserted his supernatural character, founded upon his 
supernatural operations: and, in testimony of the truth of their 
assertions, i. e. in consequence of their own belief of that truth, and 
in order to communicate their knowledge of it to others, voluntarily 
entered upon lives of toil and hardship, and, with a full experience 
of their danger, committed themselves to the last extremities of per¬ 
secution. This hath not a parallel. More particularly, a very few 
days after this Person had been publicly executed, and in the very 
city in which he was buried, these his companions declared with 
one voice that his body was restored to life; that they had seen him, 
handled him, ate with him, conversed with him; and, in pursuance 
of their persuasion of the truth of what they told, preached his reli¬ 
gion, with this strange fact as the foundation of it, in the face of 
those who had killed him, who were armed with the power of the 
country, and necessarily and naturally disposed to treat his follow 


* Aug. contra Ep. Fund. cap. ii. n. 2, 3. 


W2 



258 


Paley*s View of the 

ere as they had treated himself; and having done this upon the spot 
where the event took place, carried the intelligence of it abroad, in 
despite of difficulties and opposition, and where the nature of their 
errand gave them nothing to expect but derision, insult, and out¬ 
rage.—This is without example. These three facts, I think, are 
certain, and would have been nearly so, if the Gospel had never 
been written. The Christian story, as to these points, hath never 
varied. No other hath been set up against it. Every letter, every 
discourse, every controversy, amongst the followers of the religion; 
every book written by them, from the age of its commencement to 
the present time, in every part of the world in which it hath been 
professed, and with every sect into which it hath been divided (and 
we have letters and discourses written by contemporaries, by wit¬ 
nesses of the transaction, by persons themselves bearing a share in 
it, and other writings following that age in regular succession), con¬ 
cur in representing these facts in this manner. A religion which 
now possesses the greatest part of the civilized world, unquestion¬ 
ably sprang up at Jerusalem at this time. Some account must be 
given of its origin; some cause assigned for its rise. All the ac¬ 
counts of this origin, all the explications of this cause, whether 
taken from the writings of the early followers of the religion (in 
which, and in which perhaps alone, it could be expected that they 
should be distinctly unfolded), or from occasional notices in other 
writings of that or the adjoining age, either expressly allege the 
facts above stated as the means by which the religion was set up, 
or advert to its commencement in a manner which agrees with the 
supposition of these facts being true, and which testifies their opera¬ 
tion and effocts. 

These propositions alone lay a foundation for our faith; for they 
prove the existence of a transaction, which cannot even in its most 
general parts be accounted for, upon any reasonable supposition, 
except that of the truth of the mission. But the particulars, the de¬ 
tail of the miracles or miraculous pretences (for such there necessa¬ 
rily must have been), upon which this unexampled transaction 
rested, and for which these men acted and suffered as they did act 
and suffer, it is undoubtedly of great importance to us to know. 
We have this detail from the fountain-head, from the persons them¬ 
selves ; in accounts written by eye-witnesses of the scene, by con¬ 
temporaries and companions of those who were so; not in one 
book, but four, each containing enough for the verification of the 
religion, all agreeing in the fundamental parts of the history. We 
have the authenticity of these books established, by more and 
stronger proofs than belong to almost any other ancient book what¬ 
ever, and by proofs ^vhich widely distinguish them from any others 
claiming a similar authority to theirs. If there were any good rea¬ 
son for doubt concerning the names to which these books w^ere as¬ 
cribed (which there is not, for they were never ascribed to any 
other, and we have evidence not long after their publication of theiV 
bearing the names which they now bear), their antiquity, of which 
there is no question, their reputation and authority amongst tb? 


Evidences of Christianity. 259 

early disciples of the religion, of which there is as little, form a valid 
j^oof that they must, in the main at least, have agreed with what 
the first teachers of the religion delivered. 

When w'e open these ancient volumes, we discover in them 
marks of truth, whether we consider each in itself, or collate them 
with one another. The writers certainly knew something of what 
they were writing about, for they manifest an acquaintance with 
local circumstances, with the history and usages of the times, 
which could only belong to an inhabitant of that country, living 
in that age. In every narrative we perceive simplicity and un¬ 
designedness ; the air and the language of reality. When we 
compare the different narratives together, we find them so varying 
as to repel all suspicion of confederacy; so agreeing under this va¬ 
riety, as to show that the accounts had one real transaction for their 
common foundation; often attributing different actions and dis¬ 
courses to the person whose history, or rather memoirs of whose 
history, they profess to relate, yet actions and discourses so similar, 
as very much to bespeak the same character; which is a coinci¬ 
dence, that, iri such writers as they were, could only be the conse¬ 
quence of their writing from fact, and not from imagination. 

These four narratives are confined to the history of the Founder 
of the religion, and end with his ministry. Since, however, it is 
certain that the affair went on, we cannot help being anxious to 
know how it proceeded. This intelligence hath come down to us 
in a work purporting to be written by a person, himself connected 
with the business during the first stages of its progress, taking up 
the story where the former histories had left it, carrying on the 
narrative, oftentimes with great particularity, and throughout with 
the appearance of good sense,* information, and candor; stating all 
along the origin, and the only probable origin, of effects which un¬ 
questionably were produced, together with the natural conse¬ 
quences of situations w^hich unquestionably did exist; and confirmed, 
in the substance at, least of the account, by the strongest possible 
accession of testimony which a history can receive, original letters, 
written by the person who is the pnncipal subject of the history, 
written upon the business to which the history relates, and during 
the period, or soon after the period, which the history comprises. 
No man can say that this all together is not a body of strong histori¬ 
cal evidence. 

When we reflect that some of those from whom the books pro¬ 
ceeded, are related to have themselves wrought miracles, to have 
been the subject of miracles, or of supernatural assistance in propa- 
gaiing the religion, we may perhaps be led to think, that more 
credit, or a different kind of credit, is due to these accounts, than 
what can be claimed by merely human testimony. But this is an 


* See Peter’s speech upon curing the cripple (Acts iii. 18), the council 
of the apostles (xv.), Paul’s discourse at Athens (xvii. 22), before Agrippa 
(xx\i.) I notice these passages, both as fraught with good sense, and as 
free from tbn smallest tincture of enthusiasm. 



260 


Foley's View of the 

argument which cannot be addressed to sceptics or unbelievers. A 
man must be a Christian before he can receive it. The ir- piration 
of the historical Scriptures, the nature, degree, and extent of that 
inspiration, are questions undoubtedly of serious discussion; but 
they are questions amongst Christians themselves, and not betw een 
them and others. The doctrine itself is by no means necessary to 
the belief of Christianity, which must, in the first instance at least, 
depend upon the ordinary maxims of historical credibility.* 

In viewing the detail of miracles recorded in these books, we 
find every supposition negatived, by which they can be resolved 
into fraud or delusion. They were not secret, not momentary, not 
tentative, nor ambiguous; nor performed under the sanction of 
authority, with the spectators on their side, or in affirmance of 
tenets and practices already established. We find also the evidence 
alleged for them, and which evidence was by great numbers re¬ 
ceived, different from that upon which other miraculous accounts 
rest. It was contemporary, it was published upon the spot, it con¬ 
tinued ; it involved interests and questions of the greate.st magni¬ 
tude ; it contradicted the most fixed persuasions and prejudices of 
the persons to whom it was addressed ; it required from those who 
accepted it, not a simple, indolent assent, but a change, from thence¬ 
forward, of principles and conduct, a submission to consequences 
the most serious and the most deterring, to loss and danger, to in¬ 
sult, outrage, and persecution. How such a story should be false, 
or, if false, how under such circumstances it should make its way, 
I think impossible to be explained; yet such the Christian story 
was, such were the circumstances under which it came forth, and 
in opposition to such difficulties did it prevail. 

An event so connected with the religion, and with the fortunes, 
of the Je wish people, as one of their race, one born amongst them, 
establishing his authority and his law throughout a great portion of 
the civilized world, it was perhaps to be expected, should be no¬ 
ticed in the prophetic writings of that nation; especially when this 
Person, together with his own mission, caused also to be acknow¬ 
ledged the divine original of their institution, and by those who be¬ 
fore had altogether rejected it. Accordingly, we perceive in these 
writings various intimations concurring in the person and history 
of Jesus, in a manner, and in a degree, in which passages taken 
from these books could not be made to concur in any person arbi¬ 
trarily assumed, or in any person except him who has been the 
author of great changes in the affairs and opinions of mankind. Of 
some of these predictions the weight depends a good deal upon the 
concurrence. Others possess great separate strength: one in par¬ 
ticular does this in an eminent degree. It is an entire description, 
manifestly directed to one character and to one scene of things: it 
is extant in a writing, or collection of writings, declaredly prophetic; 
and it applies to Christ’s character, and to the circumstances of his 
life and death, with considerable precision, and in a way which no 


* See Powell’s Discourses, disc. xv. p. 245 




Evidertces of Christianity. 261 

diversity of interpretation hath, in my opinion, been able 'to con¬ 
found. That the advent of Christ, and the consequences of it, 
should not have been more distinctly revealed in the Jewish sacred 
Iwoks. is, I think, in some measure accounted for by the considera¬ 
tion, that for the Jews to have foreseen the fall of their institution, 
and that it was to emerge at length into a more perfect and compre- 
herisive dispensation, would have cooled too much, and relaxed 
their zeal for it, and their adherence to it, upon which zeal and ad¬ 
herence the preservation in the world of any remains, for many 
ages, of religious truth might in a great measure depend. 

Of what a revelation discloses to mankind, one, and only one, 
question can properly be asked. Was it of importance to mankind 
to know, or to be better assured of? In this question, when we 
turn our thoughts to the great Christian doctrine of the resurrec¬ 
tion of the dead, and of a future judgment, no doubt can possibly 
be entertained. He who gives me riches or honors, does nothing; 
he who even gives me health, does little in comparison with that 
which lays before me just grounds for expecting a restoration to 
life, and a day of account and retribution: which thing Christianity 
hath done for millions. 

Other articles of the Christian faith, although of infinite import¬ 
ance when placed beside any other topic of human inquiry, are 
only the adjuncts and circumstances of this. They are, however, 
such as appear worthy of the original to which we ascribe them. 
The morality of the religion, whether taken from the precepts or 
the example of its Founder, or from the lessons of its primitive 
teachers, derived, as it should seem, from what had been inculcated 
by their Master, is, in all its parts, wise and pure ; neither adapted 
to vulgar prejudices, nor flattering popular notions, nor excusing 
established practices, but calculated, in the matter of its instruc¬ 
tion, truly to promote human happiness, and in the form in which 
it was conveyed, to produce impression and effect; a morality, 
which, let it have proceeded from any person whatever, would 
have been satisfactory evidence of his good sense and integrity, of 
the soundness of his understanding, and the probity of his designs; 
a morality, in every view of it, much more perfect than could have 
been expected from the natural circumstances and character of the 
person who delivered it; a morality, in a word, which is, and hath 
been, most beneficial to mankind. 

Upon the greatest, therefore, of all possible occasions, and for a 
purpose of inestimable value, it pleased the Deity to vouchsafe a 
miraculous attestation. Having done this for the institution, when 
this alone could fix its authority, or give to it a beginning, he com¬ 
mitted its future progress to the natural means of human communi¬ 
cation, and to the influence of those causes by which human con¬ 
duct and human affairs are governed. The seed being sown, was 
left to vegetate; the leaven, being inserted, was left to ferment; and 
both according to the laws of nature : laws, nevertheless, disposed 
and controlled by that providence which conducts the affairs of the 
universe, though by an influenqe inscrutable, and generally undis- 


262 Paley's View of the 

tinguishable by us. And in this Cbristianity is analogous to most 
other provisions for happiness. The provision is made; and, being 
made, is left to act according to laws, which, forming a part of a 
more general system, regulate this particular subject, in common 
with many others. 

Let the constant recurrence to our, observation of contrivance, 
design, and wisdom, in the works of nature, once fix upon our minds 
the belief of a God, and after that all is easy. In the counsels of a 
being possessed of the power and disposition which the Creator of 
the universe must possess, it is not improbable that there should be 
a future state; it is not improbable that we should be acquainted 
with it. A future state rectifies every thing; because, if moral 
agents be made, in the last event, happy or miserable, according to 
their conduct in the stations and under the circumstances in which 
they are placed, it seems not very material by the operation of what 
causes, according to what rules, or even, if you please to call it so, 
y what chance or caprice, these stations are assigned, or these cir¬ 
cumstances determined. This hypothesis, therefore, solves all that 
objection to the divine care and goodness, which the promiscuous 
distribution of good and evil (I do not mean in the doubtful advan¬ 
tages of riches and grandeur, but in the unquestionably important 
distinctions of health and sickness, strength and infirmity, bodily 
ease and pain, mental alacrity and depression) is apt, on so many 
occasions, to create. This one truth changes the nature of things; 
gives order to confusion; makes the moral w'orld of a piece with 
the natural. 

Nevertheless, a higher degree of assurance than that to which it 
is possible to advance this, or any argument drawn from the light 
of nature, was necessary, especially to overcome the shock which 
the imagination and the senses receive from the effects and the 
appearances of death, and the obstruction which thence arises to 
the expectation of either a continued or a future existence. This 
difficulty, although of a nature, no doubt, to act very forcibly, will 
be found, I think, upon reflection, to reside more in our habits of 
apprehension, than in the subject; and that the giving way to it, 
when we have any reasonable grounds for the contrary, is rather 
an indulging of the imagination, than any thing else. Abstractedly 
considered, that is, considered without relation to the difference 
which habit, and merely habit, produces in our faculties and modes 
of apprehension, I do not see any thing more in the resurrection of 
a dead man, than in the conception of a child; except it be this, that 
he one comes into the world with a system of prior consciousness 
about him, which the other does not; and no person will say, that 
he knows enough of either subject to perceive, that this circum¬ 
stance makes such a difference in the two cases, that the one should 
be easy, and the other impossible ; the one natural, the other not so. 
To the first man, the succession of the species would be as incom¬ 
prehensible, as the resurrection of the dead is to us. 

Thought is different from motion, perception from impact: the 
individuality of a mind is hardly consistent with the divisibility of 


Evidences of Christianity. 263 

an extended substance; or its volition, that is, its power of origin¬ 
ating motion, with the inertness which cleaves to every portion of 
matter which our observation or our experiments can reach. These 
distinctions lead us to an immateriaf principle : at least, they do this; 
they so negative the mechanical properties of matter, in the consti¬ 
tution of a sentient, still more of a rational being, that no argument 
drawn from these properties, can be of any great weight in opposi* 
tion to other reasons, when the question respects the changes of 
which Svich a nature is capable, or the manner in which these 
changes are effected. Whatever thought be, or whatever it depend 
upon, the regular experience of sleep makes one thing concerning 
it certain, that it can be completely suspended, and completely 
restored. 

If any one find it too great a strain upon his thoughts, to admit 
the notion of a substance strictly immaterial, that is, from which 
extension and solidity are excluded, he can find no difficulty in 
allowing, that a particle as small as a particle of light, minuter than 
all conceivable dimensions, may just as easily be the depository, the 
organ, and the vehicle, of consciousness, as the congeries of animal 
substance which forms a human body, or the human brain; that, 
being so, it may transfer a proper ideAtity to whatever shall here¬ 
after be united to it; may be safe amidst the destruction of its in¬ 
teguments ; may connect the natural with the spiritual, the corrupt¬ 
ible with the glorified, body. If it be said, that the mode and means 
of all this are imperceptible by our senses, it is only what is true of 
the most imjx>rtant agencies and operations. The great powers of 
nature are all invisible. Gravitation, electricity, magnetism, though 
constantly present, and constantly exerting their influence ; though 
within us, near us, and about us; though diffused throughout all 
space, overspreading the surface, or penetrating the contexture, of 
ail bodies with which we are acquainted, depend upon substances 
and actions which are totally concealed from our senses. The Su¬ 
preme Intelligence is so himself. 

But whether these or any other attempts to satisfy the imagina¬ 
tion, bear any resemblance to the truth, or whether the imagination, 
which, as I nave said before, is a mere slave of habit, can be satis 
fied or not; when a future state, and the revelation of a future 
state, is not only perfectly consistent with the attributes of the Being 
who governs the universe; but when it is more, when it alone re¬ 
moves the appearances of contrariety which attend the operations 
of his will towards creatures capable of comparative merit and 
demerit, of reward and punishment; when a strong body of histor¬ 
ical evidence, confirmed by many internal tokens of truth and au¬ 
thenticity, gives us just reason to believe that such a revelation hath 
actually been made; we ought to set our minds at rest with the 
assurance, that in the resources of Creative Wisdom, expedients 
cannot be wanted to carry into effect what the Deity hath purposed : 
that either a new and mighty influence will descend upon the human 
world to resuscitate extinguished consciousness; or that amidst the 
other wonderful contrivances with which the universe abounds, and 


264 


Paley's View^ c^c. 


■Blf 


by some of which we see animal life, in many instances, assuming 
improved forms of existence, acnjuiring new organs, new perceptions,- fils 
and new sources of enjoyment, provision is also made, though by/^j-jpj 
methods secret to us (as all the great processes of nature are), forV:;j|||j 
conducting the objects of'.God’s moral government, through the 
necessary changes of their frame, to those final distinctions of 
piness and misery, which he hath declared to be reserved for obe- ■jiliUlt 
dience and transgression, for virtue and vice, for the use and the 
neglect, the light and the wrong employment, of the faculties and 
opportunities with which he hath been pleased, severally, to intrust, 
and to try us. 




THE END 






T 



■y'/ 


-^ii 




.y^ 





Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: August 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



-V'l 



I • « 


I 



0 


f 


0 


<1 


I 


t 


1 




> 

I 

f 


i 

! 


' ' • \ 

I 

i 


# 





,1 I 

r,, f 




k 

i f • 


% 


f 




) 

1 ^ 


I 

^ t> ,r '• 




> 


I 


\ 


I 


i 


I 




• 51 


I 



4 




























































